Hazardous Materials: Response to an Industry Petition To Reduce Regulatory Burden for Cylinder Requalification Requirements, 68790-68798 [2020-22483]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
68790
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 211 / Friday, October 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Administrator shall provide written
notice to the community and to the state
and assure publication of the
community’s loss of eligibility for the
sale of flood insurance on the internet
or by another comparable method, such
suspension to become effective upon the
expiration of the six month period.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * * If a community is to be
suspended, the Federal Insurance
Administrator shall inform it upon 30
days prior written notice and upon
publication of its loss of eligibility for
the sale of flood insurance on the
internet or by another comparable
method. * * *
(d) * * * If a community is to be
suspended, the Federal Insurance
Administrator shall inform it upon 30
days prior written notice and upon
publication of its loss of eligibly for the
sale of flood insurance on the internet
or by another comparable method.
* * *
(e) * * * Upon receipt of a certified
copy of a final legislative action, the
Federal Insurance Administrator shall
withdraw the community from the
Program and publish its loss of
eligibility for the sale of flood insurance
on the internet or by another
comparable method. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
PART 64—COMMUNITIES ELIGIBLE
FOR THE SALE OF INSURANCE
3. The authority citation for part 61
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,
3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.
■
List of eligible communities.
FEMA will maintain a list of
communities eligible for the sale of
flood insurance pursuant to the National
Flood Insurance Program (42 U.S.C.
4001–4128). This list will be published
and maintained on the internet or
through another comparable method.
Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020–23970 Filed 10–29–20; 8:45 am]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 9111–52–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
RIN 2137–AF30
I. Overview
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 180
Hazardous Materials: Response to an
Industry Petition To Reduce
Regulatory Burden for Cylinder
Requalification Requirements
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is amending the requirements
of the requalification periods for certain
Department of Transportation (DOT) 4series specification cylinders in noncorrosive gas service in response to a
petition for rulemaking submitted by the
National Propane Gas Association
(NPGA).
DATES:
Effective date: This rule is effective
November 30, 2020.
Voluntary compliance date:
Voluntary compliance with all
amendments is authorized October 30,
2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily
Ballengee, Standards and Rulemaking
Division, (202) 366–8553, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
4. Revise § 61.6 to read as follows:
§ 64.6
[Docket No. PHMSA–2017–0083 (HM–219B)]
C. Subsequent Requalification via Proof
Pressure Testing
D. Comments Related to the Requalifier
Identification Number
E. Miscellaneous Comments
IV. Changes Being Adopted
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
List of Subjects
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I. Overview
II. Background
A. Summary of Historical Changes to the
Regulatory Text
B. HM–233F Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Final Rule
C. Petition P–1696
D. Statement of Enforcement Discretion
E. HM–219B Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; Executive Order 13924
III. NPRM Comment Discussion
A. Comments Related to the
Requalification Periods
B. Initial Requalification Periods;
Subsequent Requalification Periods via
Volumetric Expansion Testing
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PHMSA is amending the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR
parts 171–180) for certain commonly
used DOT 4-series specification
cylinders in non-corrosive gas service.
This final rule authorizes 12-year initial
and subsequent requalification periods
for volumetric expansion testing and a
12-year initial requalification period for
proof pressure testing. This final rule
does not modify the existing 10-year
subsequent requalification periods for
proof pressure testing. In addition, it
makes clarifying and conforming edits
to the requalification table in
§ 180.209(a) and the text in paragraph
(e). This final rule provides regulatory
relief by reducing requalification-related
costs for propane marketers,
distributors, and others in non-corrosive
gas service without reducing safety.
PHMSA also withdraws its Statement of
Enforcement Discretion issued on
March 17, 2017, as of the effective date
of this final rule.
II. Background
A. Summary of Historical Changes to
the Regulatory Text
As further discussed throughout this
section, the requalification periods for
volumetric expansion and proof
pressure testing—to include the first
requalification after manufacture
(‘‘initial requalification’’) and the
recurring requalifications required after
the initial requalification (‘‘subsequent
requalification(s)’’)—have evolved
through various regulatory actions.
Table 1 summarizes the history of
changes to the timelines for
requalification by volumetric expansion
and proof pressure testing that are the
subject of this rulemaking. The
requalification time periods
memorialized in Table 1 as having been
in place ‘‘Prior to HM–233F’’ date from
1964.1
1 See Interstate Commerce Commission,
Explosives and Other Dangerous Articles, 29 FR
18651 (Dec. 29, 1964) (introducing requalification
period requirements at Note 2 to § 173.34(e)(9)).
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
68791
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 211 / Friday, October 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—HISTORY OF CHANGES TO THE TIMELINE FOR VOLUMETRIC EXPANSION AND PROOF PRESSURE TESTING AND
REQUALIFICATION
Prior to
HM–233F
(years)
Initial Period for Volumetric Expansion and Proof Pressure Testing ...............
Volumetric Expansion Subsequent Requalification Periods ......................
Proof Pressure Subsequent Requalification Periods ................................
B. HM–233F Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Final Rule
On January 30, 2015, PHMSA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ‘‘Hazardous
Materials: Adoption of Special Permits
(MAP–21) (RRR)’’ [Docket No. PHMSA–
2013–0042 (HM–233F); 80 FR 5339].2
The HM–233F NPRM proposed to adopt
provisions contained in a number of
widely-used or longstanding special
permits with an established safety
record. Following a 60-day comment
period, PHMSA published a final rule
on January 21, 2016, that codified
provisions from most of those special
permits in the HMR [81 FR 3635].3 The
HM–233F final rule became effective on
February 22, 2016.
Prior to publication of the HM–233F
final rule, § 180.209(e) authorized DOT
4-series cylinders used exclusively for
non-corrosive, gaseous hazardous
materials to be requalified by volumetric
expansion every 12 years. Alternatively,
these cylinders were authorized to be
requalified by the proof pressure test
method after a 12-year initial
requalification period and then every 7
years thereafter for subsequent
requalification. The HM–233F final rule
amended § 180.209(e) to revise both
requalification periods to 10 years for
DOT 4B, 4BW, 4BA, or 4E specification
cylinders used exclusively for noncorrosive, gaseous hazardous materials.
A volumetric expansion test ensures
that a cylinder is free of leaks and
determines the total expansion (i.e., the
total increase in a cylinder’s volume due
to application of the test pressure) and
permanent expansion (i.e., the
permanent increase in a cylinder’s
volume after the test pressure is
released) of a cylinder at a given
pressure. The volumetric expansion test
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
2 Hazardous
Materials: Adoption of Special
Permits NPRM (MAP–21) (RRR), 80 FR 5339 (Jan.
30, 2015) (docket no. PHMSA–2013–0042–0001,
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=PHMSA-2013-0042-0001).
3 Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Special
Permits Final Rule (MAP–21) (RRR), 81 FR 3636
(Jan. 21, 2016) (docket no. PHMSA–2013–0042–
0030, available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=PHMSA-2013-0042-0030).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
12
12
7
HM–233F
final rule
(years)
10
10
10
is conducted by either the water jacket
or direct expansion methods. The water
jacket method measures the difference
between the volume of water a cylinder
externally displaces at test pressure and
the volume of water a cylinder
externally displaces at ambient
pressure; in contrast, the direct
expansion method measures the amount
of water forced into a cylinder at test
pressure, adjusted for the
compressibility of water, as a means of
determining the expansion of cylinder
volume. See § 180.203. A proof pressure
test is conducted by interior
pressurization without the
determination of a cylinder’s expansion.
While a proof pressure test may also
detect leaks, its intended purpose is to
verify whether a cylinder can withstand
pressure above its intended operating
pressure without permanent damage.
Both volumetric expansion and proof
pressure tests can be used to meet the
requalification requirements in
§ 180.209(e); however, they are not
equivalent testing measures and each
provide certain advantages. Notably, the
volumetric expansion test has the
comparative benefit of determining the
cylinder’s total expansion and the
amount of permanent damage to the
cylinder. The proof pressure test,
meanwhile, is less difficult to perform.
Among the special permits that
PHMSA proposed to incorporate into
the HMR in the HM–233F NPRM were
the provisions of DOT Special Permit
(DOT–SP) 12084 issued to Honeywell
International Inc.4 DOT–SP 12084 had
authorized the requalification via proof
pressure testing of DOT 4B, 4BA, or
4BW cylinders for 11 additional noncorrosive gases not listed in the version
of § 180.209(e) that was in effect at that
time. The HM–233F NPRM proposed to
revise § 180.209(e) by replacing the list
of specific hazardous materials within
that provision with broader language
extending § 180.209(e) to any non4 See DOT–SP 12084, available at: https://
www.phmsa.dot.gov/approvals-and-permits/
hazmat/file-serve/offer/SP12084.pdf/offerserver/
SP12084.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NPGA
petition
(P–1696)
(years)
HM–219B
NPRM
(years)
12
12
7
12
12
10
NPGA
comment to
NPRM
(i.e., NPGA
Alternative)
(years)
12
12
12
HM–219B
final rule
(years)
12
12
10
corrosive gases commercially free from
corroding components.5
In the HM–233F NPRM, PHMSA also
proposed to amend the requalification
periods for both the volumetric
expansion and proof pressure tests in
§ 180.209(e). Specifically, PHMSA
proposed to standardize initial and
subsequent requalification periods to 10
years for both the volumetric expansion
test (previously 12 years for both initial
and subsequent requalification) and the
proof pressure test (previously 7 years
for subsequent requalification after an
initial 12-year requalification period).
This change was not prompted by any
safety concerns pertaining to the thencontrolling initial and subsequent
requalification periods. Rather, PHMSA
sought to align the requalification
periods in § 180.209(e) with the
internationally-recognized and
validated 10-year (initial and
subsequent) requalification periods for
United Nations (UN) pressure
receptacles, which PHMSA had
previously determined were safe enough
to merit incorporation into the HMR at
§ 180.207(c).6 Due to an administrative
oversight, those proposed changes to
§ 180.209(e) were not discussed in the
preamble of the HM–233F NPRM.
PHMSA received no adverse
comments to any of the proposed
changes to § 180.209(e) and therefore
adopted the revisions as proposed in the
final rule. While the effective date of the
final rule was February 22, 2016,
PHMSA allowed for delayed
compliance with the revised
§ 180.209(e) to begin on January 23,
2017.
C. Petition P–1696
On January 13, 2017, NPGA submitted
a petition to PHMSA, titled ‘‘Petition for
5 As defined in § 180.203, ‘‘commercially free of
corrosive components’’ means a hazardous material
having a dew point at or below minus 46.7 °C
(minus 52 °F) at 101kPa (1 atmosphere) and free of
components that will adversely react with the
cylinder (e.g., chemical stress corrosion).
6 See 71 FR 33858, at 33869–70 (June 12, 2006).
Section 180.207(d) makes the 10-year initial and
subsequent requalification periods available for
both volumetric expansion and proof pressure
testing methods.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
68792
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 211 / Friday, October 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Rulemaking and Emergency Stay
Cylinder Requalification Requirements’’
[PHMSA–2017–0019 (P–1696)].7 NPGA
requested that PHMSA amend
§ 180.209(e) to restore the initial and
subsequent requalification periods for
both volumetric expansion and proof
pressure testing in § 180.209(e) to those
authorized prior to the HM–233F final
rule, as well as make conforming
changes to the table in § 180.209(a).
NPGA also requested that PHMSA issue
an emergency stay of enforcement of
HM–233F’s amendments to § 180.209(e)
while PHMSA was considering its
petition.
In the petition, NPGA advised
PHMSA that the HM–233F rulemaking
created regulatory confusion and
imposed substantial compliance costs.
Specifically, NPGA asserted that the
regulatory changes to the requalification
periods for volumetric expansion testing
(initial and subsequent requalifications)
and proof pressure testing (initial
requalification) created confusion in the
propane industry. NPGA stated that it
was unclear whether cylinders
manufactured or requalified within the
last 10 to 12 years had to be requalified
immediately, since prior to the HM–
233F final rule their requalification
would not have been required until 12
years from the date of manufacture
(volumetric expansion and proof
pressure testing) or their last
requalification (volumetric expansion
testing). Furthermore, NPGA stated that
the more frequent subsequent
requalification by volumetric expansion
testing (i.e., every 10 years instead of
every 12 years) required by the HM–
233F final rule would increase
requalification testing costs. NPGA
further explained that because current
industry practice 8 is to mark newly
manufactured cylinders eligible for
requalification in accordance with
§ 180.209(e) with a 12-year
requalification mark, industry would
have to train employees to ignore such
markings. NPGA also contended that
costs associated with training on the
revised requalification periods for
volumetric expansion and proof
pressure testing would not be
accompanied by a corresponding safety
benefit.
On March 2, 2017, PHMSA met with
NPGA representatives to: (1) Better
understand NPGA’s concerns; (2)
identify existing industry practice and
request data to assess the impact of the
7 NPGA Petition for Rulemaking & Emergency
Stay Cylinder Requalification Requirements,
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=PHMSA-2017-0083-0002.
8 NPGA acknowledges this industry practice is
voluntary and not required by the HMR.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
revised cylinder requalification periods;
and (3) evaluate the merits of
undertaking a rulemaking and issuing
an emergency stay of enforcement as
recommended by NPGA. NPGA
reiterated its position that the change in
requalification intervals would impose
unanticipated industry costs.
Furthermore, NPGA conveyed that a
majority of its associate members
requalify certain DOT 4-series
specification cylinders by volumetric
expansion testing.
Pursuant to § 106.105, PHMSA
accepted NPGA’s petition 9 on March 7,
2017, and initiated this rulemaking.
D. Statement of Enforcement Discretion
On March 17, 2017, PHMSA issued a
Statement of Enforcement Discretion
while it reviewed NPGA’s petition for
rulemaking.10 This Statement of
Enforcement Discretion specified that
DOT 4-series specification cylinders
requalified by volumetric expansion in
accordance with § 180.209(e) may have
a 10- or 12-year requalification period
without any enforcement action taken.
The Statement of Enforcement
Discretion is withdrawn upon the
effective date of this final rule.
E. HM–219B Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; Executive Order 13924
On August 6, 2019, PHMSA
published an NPRM [Docket No.
PHMSA–2017–0083–0004 (HM–219B);
84 FR 38180] 11 proposing changes to
the requalification periods in
§ 180.209(e) and clarifying edits to the
table in paragraph (a). Specifically, the
HM–219B NPRM proposed to return the
initial and subsequent requalification
periods for volumetric expansion tests
to 12 years, and to return the initial
requalification period for proof pressure
testing to 12 years. In addition, PHMSA
proposed to revise the title of
§ 180.209(e) to reflect the content of that
paragraph better. PHMSA also proposed
to amend the table in § 180.209(a) to
reflect the baseline requalification
period and the alternate requalification
period allowances for certain DOT
specification cylinders consistent with
the amendments to § 180.209(e); to
9 DOT P–1696 Acceptance Letter, available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA2017-0019-0004.
10 Notice Regarding the Requalification Period for
Department of Transportation (DOT) Specification
Cylinders, available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-20170083-0001.
11 Hazardous Materials: Response to an Industry
Petition to Reduce Regulatory Burden for Cylinder
Requalification Requirements NPRM, 84 FR 38180
(Aug. 6, 2019), available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-20170083-0004.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
remove any reference to paragraph (e)
for DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AL, 3AX, 3AAX, 3B,
3BN, and 4AA480 cylinders, which are
not authorized for requalification by the
proof pressure method in § 180.209(e);
to add a ‘‘7’’ for DOT 4B, 4BA, or 4BW
cylinders, which are authorized for
requalification every 7 or 12 years,
instead of 5 years, when used as a fire
extinguisher in accordance with
§ 180.209(j); 12 and to make additional
editorial corrections for consistency.
The NPRM mirrored NPGA’s
proposed amendments except that it
retained the HM–233F final rule’s 10year period for subsequent proof
pressure requalification testing. In the
HM–219B NPRM, PHMSA explained
that the extended period for subsequent
requalification by proof pressure test (10
years versus 7 years) may provide
savings that outweigh the costs of
compliance training on the HM–233F
final rule and requested comment on the
potential costs or savings that may
result.
The comment period closed on
October 7, 2019. PHMSA received
comments in response to the HM–219B
NPRM from Gentry Investigation
Service, LLC (GIS) and NPGA. PHMSA
also received comments from The
Chemours Company (Chemours) on
October 23, 2019. Consistent with
§§ 5.13(i)(5) and 106.70(b), PHMSA
considered Chemours’s late-filed
comments given its interest in the
rulemaking and the absence of
additional expense or delay resulting
from consideration of its comments.
Following the closing of the comment
period, Executive Order 13924,
‘‘Regulatory Relief to Support Economic
Recovery’’ (85 FR 31353, May 22, 2020)
directed Federal agencies to respond to
the economic harm caused by the novel
coronavirus by reviewing their
regulations to identify regulatory
requirements for potential rescission or
modification to reduce regulatory
burdens and thereby promote economic
growth. Executive Order 13924 at
section 4. PHMSA understands the cost
savings expected from the HMR
amendments adopted in this final rule
to be consistent with Executive Order
13924’s mandate.
III. NPRM Comment Discussion
A. Comments Related to the
Requalification Periods
In its comment to the NPRM, NPGA
requested that PHMSA modify
12 As proposed in the NPRM, this is a conforming
amendment for consistency between the table in
paragraph (a) and the provisions in paragraph (j),
which was inadvertently deleted in the HM–233F
final rule.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 211 / Friday, October 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
§ 180.209(e) to permit a universal 12year period for both initial and
subsequent requalification by either
volumetric expansion or proof pressure
testing. This is a departure from NPGA’s
initial recommendation in P–1696 to
revert to the historical 7-year
subsequent requalification periods for
proof pressure testing. Chemours and
GIS, meanwhile, expressed their
support for the initial and subsequent
requalification periods for volumetric
expansion and proof pressure testing
provided in the HM–219B NPRM. In
this final rule, PHMSA is adopting the
changes to the requalification periods
for volumetric expansion (initial and
subsequent requalification) and proof
pressure testing (initial requalification)
proposed in the HM–219B NPRM.
B. Initial Requalification Periods;
Subsequent Requalification Periods via
Volumetric Expansion Testing
PHMSA received no comments
opposing the NPRM’s proposal to
amend § 180.209(e) to restore a 12-year
initial requalification testing period by
both volumetric expansion and proof
pressure testing, and 12-year subsequent
requalification periods by volumetric
expansion testing.
DOT 4-series cylinders—which are
commonly used and include everything
from small propane cylinders typically
used in home grilling applications to
larger cylinders used in the construction
industry—have been in service as
authorized packaging types for decades.
Despite millions of these cylinders
having entered into service and having
been requalified as provided by the
HMR before the HM–233F final rule,
there have been few reported incidents,
and PHMSA is unaware of any
systematic safety concerns. The
historically safe use of these cylinders
demonstrates that restoration of the
previously-authorized 12-year
requalification periods proposed by the
NPRM will not have an adverse effect
on safety.
PHMSA further notes that reversion to
the historical 12-year subsequent
requalification period for volumetric
expansion testing as proposed in the
NPRM would likely not impose
substantial regulatory costs. Even
though the HM–233F final rule
provided that its 10-year subsequent
requalification period for volumetric
expansion testing would become
mandatory in January 2017, the
Statement of Enforcement Discretion
issued in March 2017 gave regulated
entities a reprieve from that more
frequent subsequent requalification
testing requirement until the conclusion
of this rulemaking. The NPRM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
subsequently signaled PHMSA’s intent
to revert to the historical 12-year
subsequent requalification period for
volumetric expansion testing. PHMSA
therefore expects that few regulated
entities have adjusted their compliance
programs and training in conformity
with this element of the HM–233F final
rule such that they would incur
additional costs from reverting to the
historical 12-year subsequent
requalification for volumetric expansion
as proposed in the NPRM.
C. Subsequent Requalification via Proof
Pressure Testing
Prior to the HM–233F final rule, the
provision for a 7-year subsequent
requalification period by proof pressure
testing had remained unchanged since
1964. In the HM–219B NPRM, PHMSA
invited comments on the potential costs
or savings that may result from
maintaining 10-year subsequent
requalification periods via proof
pressure testing established by the HM–
233F final rule, instead of returning to
the historical 7-year subsequent
requalification period by proof pressure
testing as proposed by NPGA in its
petition. Chemours and GIS expressed
support for retaining the 10-year
subsequent requalification periods for
proof pressure testing contemplated by
the NPRM. NPGA in its comments
submitted in response to the NPRM
agreed with the other commenters that
PHMSA should not revert to the original
7-year subsequent requalification period
by proof pressure testing as it had
originally urged in its petition for
rulemaking—and now called for
extension of subsequent requalification
periods for proof pressure testing to 12
years. NPGA contended that its newlyiterated preference would further reduce
regulatory burdens without adversely
impacting safety.
In the HM–233F final rule, PHMSA
sought to align the subsequent
requalification period for proof pressure
testing in § 180.209(e) with the 10-year
subsequent proof pressure test
requalification period for UNspecification cylinders included in the
HMR at § 180.207(c). While PHMSA
expected that a longer subsequent
requalification period would promote
consistency within the HMR and
thereby enhance compliance while
reducing regulatory burdens, NPGA’s
petition for rulemaking argued that this
and other changes adopted in the HM–
233F final rule would in fact entail
substantial costs to update compliance
programs and train personnel.
PHMSA notes the 10-year period for
subsequent proof pressure testing has
been codified within the HMR since the
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68793
HM–233F final rule became effective in
February 2016, and regulated entities
must have been in compliance since
January 2017.13 Any compliance
program adjustments and additional
training required to account for the
change from a 7-year to 10-year
subsequent requalification period for
proof pressure testing have likely
already been implemented. Further,
regulated entities remain free to
continue subsequent requalification of
cylinders via proof pressure testing
more frequently—every 7 years instead
of every 10 years—than as required by
§ 180.209(e). On the other hand, if
PHMSA were now to revert to the
historical 7-year subsequent
requalification period requirement for
proof pressure testing as NPGA’s
petition for rulemaking had
recommended, the result would be
additional compliance program and
training costs for those entities that had
adjusted their compliance and training
programs in conformity with the
changes introduced by the HM–233F
final rule. Given the absence from the
administrative record of any safety
benefits that could be evaluated against
the regulatory costs associated with
reverting to the historical 7-year
subsequent requalification period for
proof pressure testing, PHMSA has
decided against so amending
§ 180.209(e).
Similarly, PHMSA finds that the
administrative record does not justify
12-year subsequent requalification
periods for proof pressure testing.
Although NPGA contends that its
recently-iterated proposal would yield
cost savings, the administrative record
contains little evidence that extending
the subsequent requalification periods
for proof pressure-tested cylinders to 12
years would provide an equivalent level
of safety to the 10-year subsequent
requalification periods introduced into
§ 180.209(e) by the HM–233F final rule.
Unlike the initial requalification and
subsequent requalification via
volumetric expansion, PHMSA cannot
draw on the historical experience under
HMR language predating the HM–233F
final rule to evaluate the safety impacts
of a 12-year subsequent requalification
period via proof pressure testing.
Furthermore, PHMSA notes that
while both volumetric expansion and
proof pressure tests can be used to meet
the requirements in § 180.209(e), they
are not equivalent testing measures as
suggested by NPGA. Volumetric
13 The March 17, 2017, Statement of Enforcement
discretion pertained only to subsequent
requalification by volumetric expansion testing, not
proof pressure testing.
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
68794
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 211 / Friday, October 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
expansion testing is a more rigorous
testing method than proof pressure
testing in that it verifies not only the
pressure integrity of a cylinder (as proof
pressure testing does), but also the
absence of permanent expansion to a
cylinder—which may be an indication
of extensive wall thinning or other types
of damage. This fundamental difference
between the two test methods was the
basis for their different subsequent
requalification periods in the HMR for
nearly five decades, and NPGA has not
provided data demonstrating that proof
pressure testing is sufficient to verify
the integrity of a cylinder over
successive 12-year subsequent
requalification periods. Further, because
the potential for compromise of cylinder
integrity would increase over time,
PHMSA is unconvinced by NPGA’s
assertion that PHMSA should
necessarily have the same confidence in
the safety of successive 12-year
subsequent requalification periods by
proof pressure testing as it does for an
initial 12-year requalification period as
proposed in the NPRM.
Therefore, in consideration of the lack
of record evidence presented by NPGA
to demonstrate the safety of its revised
recommendation regarding subsequent
requalification periods for proof
pressure testing, and the support of
other commenters for the current 10year subsequent requalification period
by proof pressure testing, PHMSA
declines to amend this element of
§ 180.209(e) as requested by NPGA in its
comments on the NPRM.
D. Comments Related to the Requalifier
Identification Number
GIS requested that PHMSA either
modify §§ 180.209(g) and 180.215(a)(1)–
(2) to include a reference to a Visual
Only Requalifier Identification Number
(VIN) as an acceptable test method for
requalifying cylinders, or add a new
definition in § 171.8 for ‘‘Requalifier
Identification Number (RIN)’’ to clarify
the different types of RINs issued by the
DOT. GIS also recommended modifying
§ 180.213(d) to include a second
example to demonstrate the proper
marking method for a VIN and updating
the existing DOT publication ‘‘Is Your
Propane Cylinder Safe?’’ upon
completion of the final rule. NPGA
expressed support for GIS’s proposed
HMR modifications and updates to
relevant PHMSA guidance documents.
Chemours did not comment on GIS’s
proposals.
PHMSA notes that the revisions GIS
recommended were not discussed in the
NPRM. Section 180.203 of the HMR
defines a ‘‘Requalification identification
number or RIN’’ as a code assigned by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
the DOT to identify a cylinder
requalification, repair, or rebuilding
facility. The Associate Administrator of
Hazmat Safety issues a RIN as evidence
that an applicant is authorized to
requalify DOT specification or special
permit cylinders, or TC, CTC, CRC, or
BTC specification cylinders or tubes, or
UN pressure receptacles based on
certain evaluation requirements. See
§ 107.805(d). A VIN is a subset of a RIN,
but more specifically, the VIN pertains
only to cylinders that may be requalified
visually in accordance with
§ 180.209(g). PHMSA agrees that this
section would benefit from additional
clarity but is concerned that GIS’s
proposed changes to §§ 180.209(g) and
180.215(a)(1)–(2) may cause
unnecessary confusion to stakeholders
who hold an existing RIN without
sufficient notice. As such, PHMSA is
not adopting GIS’s recommended
revisions to the HMR at this time as we
would like to allow for further
stakeholder engagement and
opportunity to comment on any
proposed changes before making this
determination. PHMSA may consider
these changes for inclusion in a future
rulemaking.
Finally, PHMSA agrees with GIS’s
observation that the existing DOT
publication ‘‘Is Your Propane Cylinder
Safe?’’ will need to be updated to
conform to the HMR amendments
introduced in this final rule.
E. Miscellaneous Comments
GIS expressed its belief that the
regulatory changes proposed in the
NPRM are inconsistent with the
objective of the Regulatory Cooperation
Council (RCC) of more closely aligning
Canadian and U.S. regulations
governing the transportation of
hazardous materials. NPGA expressed
disagreement with GIS’s comment as it
does not believe the HMR amendments
proposed in the NPRM deviate from the
objectives of the RCC, as PHMSA and
Transport Canada remain free to
continue working to align better their
respective regulatory standards. PHMSA
agrees with NPGA’s comments on this
issue and will continue to work with
Transport Canada to ensure
international regulatory cooperation and
reduce, eliminate, and prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.
GIS provided background information
about industry practice and
representation included in NPGA’s
petition. GIS explained that only one
domestic manufacturer was marking the
collar of the cylinder with a
requalification requirement and that this
manufacturer stopped after publication
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of the HM–233F final rule, whereas
NPGA’s petition presented this practice
as widespread. In addition, GIS
disagreed with NPGA’s statement that
most DOT 4-series specification
cylinders are requalified by volumetric
expansion testing. GIS contends that
while large liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) cylinders may be requalified by
volumetric expansion or proof pressure
testing, it believes most of the LPG
industry prefer a visual-only inspection.
PHMSA revised the training cost
savings in the Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) after taking into
consideration the clarifying information
submitted by GIS.
IV. Changes Being Adopted
After reviewing the comments
received and taking into consideration
the scope of the rulemaking as outlined,
PHMSA is adopting the amendments as
proposed in the NPRM. This final rule
revises the requalification periods in
§ 180.209(e) for DOT 4-series
specification cylinders in non-corrosive
gas service to allow for a 12-year initial
requalification by volumetric expansion
testing or proof pressure testing, and 12year subsequent requalification periods
by volumetric expansion testing. It does
not disturb existing HMR provisions
providing for 10-year subsequent
requalification periods for proof
pressure testing. In addition, it makes
clarifying and conforming editorial
changes to the requalification table in
§ 180.209(a), as well as the title of
§ 180.209(e) to reflect the content of that
paragraph.
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This
Rulemaking
This final rule is published under the
authority of the Federal Hazardous
Materials Transportation Law (Federal
hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.),
which authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to ‘‘prescribe regulations
for the safe transportation, including
security, of hazardous materials in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign
commerce.’’ The Secretary’s authority is
delegated to PHMSA at 49 CFR 1.97.
This final rule proposes to amend the
requalification periods for certain DOT
4-series specification cylinders under
relief provided in § 180.209(e) and to
revise the requalification table in
§ 180.209(a) accordingly.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is considered a
nonsignificant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 211 / Friday, October 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’) 14
and therefore was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). This final rule is also considered
a nonsignificant rulemaking under the
DOT rulemaking procedures at 49 CFR
part 5.
Executive Order 12866 requires
agencies to regulate in the ‘‘most costeffective 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.’’
Additionally, Executive Order 12866
requires agencies to provide a
meaningful opportunity for public
participation, which also reinforces
requirements for notice and comment
under the Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. 553 et seq.). Similarly, DOT
regulations at § 5.5(f)–(g) require that
regulations issued by PHMSA and other
DOT Operating Administrations
‘‘should be designed to minimize
burdens and reduce barriers to market
entry whenever possible, consistent
with the effective promotion of safety’’
and should generally ‘‘not be issued
unless their benefits are expected to
exceed their costs.’’
PHMSA’s preliminary analysis found
that the proposed changes would result
in total net cost savings of
approximately $142.4 million over 10
years, or $20.3 million annualized,
when discounted at 7 percent. PHMSA
made a minor revision to exclude
training-related cost savings that do not
appear warranted after public comment
and clarification presented by GIS. With
the revision, PHMSA finds total net cost
savings of approximately $140.5 million
over 10 years, discounted at 7 percent,
or $20.0 million annualized at 7
percent. Please see the rulemaking
docket for the Final RIA for additional
details.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
C. Executive Order 13771
This final rule is expected to be a
deregulatory action under Executive
Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs’’).15 Details
on the estimated cost savings of this
proposed rule can be found in the Final
RIA included in the rulemaking docket.
D. Executive Order 13132
This final rule was analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 (‘‘Federalism’’) 16 and the
President’s memorandum
(‘‘Preemption’’) that was published in
14 58
FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
FR 9339 (Feb. 24, 2017).
16 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
the Federal Register on May 22, 2009
[74 FR 24693]. Executive Order 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.’’ This rulemaking
will preempt State, local, and Tribal
requirements but does not propose 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. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
Federal hazmat law contains an
express preemption provision at 49
U.S.C. 5125(b) that preempts State,
local, and Indian Tribal requirements
that are not substantively the same as
Federal requirements on certain
subjects, including the packing,
handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous materials.
Because this rulemaking addresses the
design, manufacture, fabrication,
marking, maintenance, recondition,
repair, or testing of a packaging or
container represented, marked, certified,
or sold as qualified for use in
transporting hazardous material, it
preempts State, local, and Indian Tribe
requirements that are not substantively
the same as the Federal requirements
introduced in this rulemaking. This
rulemaking is necessary to provide cost
savings and regulatory flexibility to the
propane industry.
E. Executive Order 13175
This final rule was analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments’’) 17
and DOT Order 5301.1 ‘‘Department of
Transportation Policies, Programs, and
Procedures Affecting American Indians,
Alaska Natives, and Tribes.’’ Executive
Order 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1
require DOT Operating Administrations
to assure meaningful and timely input
from Indian 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 and
distribution of power between the
15 82
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 29, 2020
17 65
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000).
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68795
Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This final rule neither imposes direct
compliance costs on Tribal
communities, nor has a substantial
direct effect on those communities.
Therefore, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13175
and DOT Order 5301.1 do not apply.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive
Order 13272, and DOT Policies and
Procedures
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies to
review regulations to assess their impact
on small entities unless the agency
determines that a rulemaking is not
expected to have significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule has been developed in
accordance with Executive Order 13272
(‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking’’) 18 and DOT’s
procedures and policies to promote
compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to ensure that potential
impacts on small entities are considered
properly. This final rule does not have
a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
This rule provides cost savings and
regulatory flexibility to the affected
entities, as discussed above and in the
Final RIA uploaded to the rulemaking
docket. Specifically, the changes
provide relief to cylinder manufacturers
and marketers of the propane industry,
including small entities, by easing
requalification requirements with no
anticipated reduction in safety. To the
extent that new training is required for
cylinder marketers to understand the
10-year timeframe applicable to
cylinders subsequently requalified by
proof pressure testing, these costs were
estimated in the NPRM to represent just
1 percent of the estimated cost savings
afforded to the same entities.19
Further, if a small entity wished to
forego these training costs, they could.
This is because the applicable
timeframe for subsequent requalification
by proof pressure testing prior to HM–
233F and this rule was 7 years. If they
so choose, they could still comply with
the HMR by requalifying a cylinder in
need of subsequent requalification by
proof pressure testing earlier than
required (i.e., within 7 years instead of
10).
Consideration of alternative proposals
for small businesses. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act directs agencies to
establish exceptions and differing
18 68
FR 7990 (Feb. 19, 2003).
Exhibit 8–1—Total Net Cost Savings, in the
NPRM. We divide estimated costs of $1.7 million
dollars by $163.6 million in estimated cost savings
(undiscounted figures).
19 See
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
68796
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 211 / Friday, October 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
compliance standards for small
businesses, where it is possible to do so
and still meet the objectives of
applicable regulatory statutes.
PHMSA certifies that this final rule
does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The changes are generally
intended to provide regulatory
flexibility and cost savings to industry
members.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) no
person is required to respond to any
information collection unless it has
been approved by OMB and displays a
valid OMB control number. Section
1320.8(d) of 5 CFR requires that PHMSA
provide interested members of the
public and affected agencies an
opportunity to comment on information
and recordkeeping requests.
PHMSA currently accounts for
burdens associated with the
requalification of DOT specification
cylinders, including DOT 4-series
specification cylinders, in OMB Control
No. 2137–0022 titled, ‘‘Testing,
Inspection and Marking Requirements
for Cylinders.’’ This OMB Control
Number includes burdens associated
with the requalification markings,
reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements of DOT specification
cylinders. While this final rule
addresses the requalification of certain
DOT 4-series specification cylinders
addressed in this OMB Control Number,
PHMSA believes that the overall effect
on the number of respondents and
burden hours are negligible in relation
to the number of respondents and
burden hours associated with this OMB
Control Number. In the NPRM, PHMSA
solicited comment on the information
collection burdens associated with the
revision to requalification of certain
DOT 4-series specification cylinders and
received no such comments.
H. Regulation Identifier Number
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 can be used to crossreference this action with the Unified
Agenda.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final rule does not impose
unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). It does not result
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
in costs of $100 million or more,
adjusted for inflation or more in any
year 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 rulemaking.
J. Environmental Assessment
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) requires Federal agencies to
consider the consequences of major
Federal actions and prepare a detailed
statement on actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment. The Council on
Environmental Quality implementing
regulations (40 CFR part 1500) require
Federal agencies to conduct an
environmental review considering (1)
the need for the action; (2) alternatives
to the action; (3) probable
environmental impacts of the action and
alternatives; and (4) comments by
agencies and persons consulted during
the consideration process. DOT Order
5610.1C ‘‘Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts,’’ establishes
departmental procedures for the
evaluation of environmental impacts
under NEPA and its implementing
regulations.
1. Need for the Action
In response to a petition for
rulemaking submitted by the regulated
community, PHMSA is amending the
HMR to update the requalification
period for certain DOT 4-series
specification cylinders in non-corrosive
gas service. This action is intended to
provide regulatory relief to members of
the propane industry, including small
entities, by easing requirements with no
anticipated reduction in safety.
2. Alternatives Considered
In developing the final rule, PHMSA
considered the following alternatives:
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
If PHMSA were to select the No
Action Alternative, it would not
proceed with any rulemaking on this
subject and the current regulatory
standards would remain in effect. This
alternative would not address NPGA’s
petition for rulemaking. As such,
§ 180.209(e) would not be amended, and
the initial and subsequent
requalification periods for volumetric
expansion and proof pressure testing
would remain at a 10-year period. The
initial and subsequent requalification
periods for the volumetric expansion
test would not be extended to 12 years,
and the requalification periods for the
proof pressure test would not be
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
extended to an initial 12-year period
followed by 10-year subsequent
requalification periods. Additionally,
the Statement of Enforcement Discretion
that PHMSA issued on March 17, 2017,
would be withdrawn such that the
regulated entities would be required to
comply with the 10-year standardized
periods for initial and subsequent
requalification via volumetric expansion
or proof pressure testing established by
the HM–233F final rule.
Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative would revise
the requalification periods in
§ 180.209(e) for DOT 4-series
specification cylinders to allow for a 12year period for initial and subsequent
volumetric expansion testing and an
initial 12-year period followed by a 10year requalification period for proof
pressure testing. In addition, the
Statement of Enforcement Discretion
that PHMSA issued on March 17, 2017,
would be withdrawn.
Alternative 3: NPGA Alternative
Due to public comment from NPGA,
PHMSA considered an alternative in
addition to the No Action and Preferred
Alternative. This alternative would
address NPGA’s comment to the NPRM
by standardizing 12-year initial and
subsequent requalification periods for
the volumetric expansion and proof
pressure tests for DOT 4-series
specification cylinders. In addition, the
Statement of Enforcement Discretion
that PHMSA issued on March 17, 2017,
would be withdrawn.
3. Environmental Impacts
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
If PHMSA were to select the No
Action Alternative, current regulations
would remain in place and no new
provisions would be added. This
alternative would not address NPGA’s
petition for rulemaking. The current
regulatory requirements, with shorter
requalification intervals for both
volumetric expansion and proof
pressure testing, are more conservative
and, assuming full compliance, may
provide more opportunities to identify
cylinders with defects so that they could
be repaired or removed from service.
However, the effect on the quantity of
identified defects is uncertain even with
the shorter timeframe of the No Action
Alternative. For example, some
cylinders would remain in service
irrespective of the shorter timeframe,
given § 180.205(c), which specifies that
a cylinder filled before the
requalification becomes due may remain
in service until it is emptied.
Furthermore, § 180.209(c) provides that
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 211 / Friday, October 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
a DOT 4-series cylinder (except a 4L
cylinder) must be requalified before
being refilled if at any time it shows
evidence of a leak or of internal or
external corrosion, denting, bulging, or
rough usage to the extent that it is likely
to be weakened appreciably, or that has
lost 5 percent or more of its official tare
weight. Therefore, regardless of the
requalification period, no cylinder may
be filled and offered for transportation
if it has evidence of damage.
In addition, while the failure of a DOT
4B, 4BA, 4BW, or 4E specification
cylinder could result in a release of
hazmat, which could in turn destroy
property or cause environmental
damage, PHMSA’s incident data
provides very few records indicating
environmental damage resulting from
cylinder incidents (of any type).
Queried on April 30, 2020, to cover
incidents occurring from 2000 to 2019,
PHMSA’s incident data provides only
four cylinder incidents that indicate
environmental damage.20
Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative amends the
requalification period for DOT 4-series
specification cylinders in non-corrosive
gas service, which is expected to result
in decreased regulatory and economic
burden. PHMSA does not anticipate that
increased cylinder failures will occur
because PHMSA believes that prior
standards were conservative, as
represented by the long-standing use of
this common cylinder type and the lack
of related incidents referenced in 5800.1
incident reports. Additionally, the
requirements in § 180.209(c)—as
referenced in the No Action
Alternative—would still apply. The
change clarifies and broadens regulatory
requalification periods, ensuring
consistency with training programs
developed within the industry.
Alternative 3: NPGA Alternative
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
If PHMSA were to select the NPGA
Alternative, the initial and subsequent
requalification periods for the
volumetric expansion and proof
pressure tests would be extended to 12
years. However, the existing safety
record does not justify the proposed
universal 12-year interval for proof
pressure testing. Increased cylinder
failures could occur. While both
volumetric expansion and proof
pressure tests can be used to meet the
20 See 5800.1 incident reports I–2005030510, I–
2008090269, I–2010050100, and I–2010050100,
available to query at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/
hazmat-program-management-data-and-statistics/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
requirements in § 180.209(e), they are
not equivalent testing measures as
claimed by NPGA.
PHMSA has selected the Preferred
Alternative. There are no anticipated
significant impacts in the release of
environmental pollutants under either
the No Action or Preferred Alternative.
However, fewer trips transporting
cylinders for retest may result in minor
reductions to air pollutants, including
greenhouse gases.
4. Agencies Consulted
PHMSA has coordinated with the
Federal Aviation Administration, the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, the Federal Railroad
Administration, and the U.S. Coast
Guard in the development of this final
rule.
5. Conclusion
PHMSA finds that no significant
environmental impact will result from
this final rule. PHMSA received no
comments related to safety or
environmental impacts that may result
from the changes adopted in this
rulemaking.
K. Privacy Act
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 https://
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.
L. Executive Order 13609 and
International Trade Analysis
Under Executive Order 13609
(‘‘Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation’’) 21 agencies must 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. 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
data-operations/incident-statistics (Hazmat
Incident Report Search Tool). Hazmat incidents
may be under-reported to PHMSA.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68797
unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. This final rule does not
impact international trade, and the
amendments being adopted in this final
rule do not preclude discussion with
PHMSA’s Canadian counterparts to
align U.S. and Canadian cylinder
requalification regulations more closely.
M. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’) 22 requires
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement
of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
energy action.’’ Under the executive
order, a ‘‘significant energy action’’ is
defined as any action by an agency
(normally published in the Federal
Register) that promulgates, or is
expected to lead to the promulgation of,
a final rule or regulation (including a
notice of inquiry, ANPRM, and NPRM)
that (1)(i) is a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866 or
any successor order and (ii) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy; or
(2) is designated by the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs as a significant energy action.
PHMSA received no comments related
to energy impacts that may result from
this final rule.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 180
Hazardous materials transportation;
Motor carriers; Motor vehicle safety;
Packaging and containers; Railroad
safety; Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing,
PHMSA amends 49 CFR chapter I as
follows:
PART 180—CONTINUING
QUALIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF PACKAGINGS
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR
1.81 and 1.97.
2. In § 180.209, revise Table 1 in
paragraph (a) and paragraph (e) to read
as follows:
■
§ 180.209 Requirements for requalification
of specification cylinders.
(a) * * *
21 77
22 66
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
FR 26413 (Nov. 9, 2000).
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
30OCR1
68798
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 211 / Friday, October 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a) —REQUALIFICATION OF CYLINDERS 1
Specification under which cylinder was made
Minimum test pressure
(psig) 2
Requalification period
(years)
3 ..........................................................................
3A, 3AA ..............................................................
3000 psig .........................................................
5/3 times service pressure, except non-corrosive service (see § 180.209(g)).
5/3 times service pressure ...............................
5/3 times service pressure ...............................
2 times service pressure (see § 180.209(g)) ...
Test not required ..............................................
5/3 times service pressure ...............................
5/3 times service pressure ...............................
2 times service pressure (see § 180.209(g)) ...
2 times service pressure, except non-corrosive service (see § 180.209(g)).
2 times service pressure ..................................
2 times service pressure, except non-corrosive service (see § 180.209(g)).
Test not required ..............................................
..........................................................................
See current exemption or special permit .........
As marked on cylinder, but not less than 5⁄3 of
any service or working pressure marking.
5.
5, 10, or 12 (see § 180.209(b), (f), (h), and
(j)).
5 or 12 (see § 180.209(j) and (m) 3).
5.
5 or 10 (see § 180.209(f)).
3AL .....................................................................
3AX, 3AAX .........................................................
3B, 3BN ..............................................................
3E .......................................................................
3HT .....................................................................
3T .......................................................................
4AA480 ...............................................................
4B, 4BA, 4BW, 4B–240ET .................................
4D, 4DA, 4DS .....................................................
4E .......................................................................
4L ........................................................................
8, 8AL .................................................................
Exemption or special permit cylinder .................
Foreign cylinder (see § 173.301(j) of this subchapter for restrictions on use).
1 Any
2 For
3 (see §§ 180.209(k) and 180.213(c)).
5.
5 or 10 (see § 180.209(h)).
5, 7, 10, or 12 (see § 180.209(e), (f), and (j)).
5.
5, 10, or 12 (see § 180.209(e)).
10 or 20 (see § 180.209(i)).
See current exemption or special permit.
5 (see §§ 180.209(l) and 180.213(d)(2)).
cylinder not exceeding 2 inches outside diameter and less than 2 feet in length is excepted from volumetric expansion test.
cylinders not marked with a service pressure, see § 173.301a(b) of this subchapter.
provision does not apply to cylinders used for carbon dioxide, fire extinguisher, or other industrial gas service.
3 This
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Cylinders in non-corrosive gas
service. A cylinder made in
conformance with DOT Specifications
4B, 4BA, 4BW, or 4E protected
externally by a suitable corrosionresistant coating and used exclusively
for non-corrosive gas that is
commercially free from corroding
components may be requalified by
volumetric expansion testing every 12
years instead of every 5 years. As an
alternative, the cylinder may be
subjected to a proof pressure test at least
two times the marked service pressure,
but this latter type of test must be
repeated every 10 years after expiration
of the initial 12-year period. When
subjected to a proof pressure test, the
cylinder must be carefully examined
under test pressure and removed from
service if a leak or defect is found.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6,
2020, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Howard R. Elliott,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020–22483 Filed 10–29–20; 8:45 am]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 180117042–8884–02]
RTID 0648–XA598
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; quota transfer
and fishery reopening.
AGENCY:
NMFS transfers 68.7 metric
tons (mt) of Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT)
quota from the Reserve category to the
October through November 2020
General category subquota period and
reopens the General category fishery for
two days. This action is intended to
provide a reasonable opportunity to
harvest the full annual U.S. bluefin tuna
quota without exceeding it, while
maintaining an equitable distribution of
fishing opportunities across time
periods. This action applies to Atlantic
tunas General category (commercial)
permitted vessels and Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/
Headboat category permitted vessels
with a commercial sale endorsement
when fishing commercially for BFT.
DATES: The quota transfer is effective
October 27, 2020, through November 30,
2020. The reopening is effective 12:30
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
a.m., local time, October 28, 2020,
through 11:30 p.m., local time, October
29, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah McLaughlin or Nicholas
Velseboer, 978–281–9260, or Larry
Redd, 301–427–8503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations implemented under the
authority of the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et
seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by
persons and vessels subject to U.S.
jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part
635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S.
BFT quota recommended by the
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
and as implemented by the United
States among the various domestic
fishing categories, per the allocations
established in the 2006 Consolidated
Highly Migratory Species Fishery
Management Plan (2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2,
2006) and amendments. NMFS is
required under ATCA and the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S.
fishing vessels with a reasonable
opportunity to harvest the ICCATrecommended quota.
The current baseline General and
Reserve category quotas are 555.7 mt
and 29.5 mt, respectively. See
§ 635.27(a). Each of the General category
time periods (January, June through
August, September, October through
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 211 (Friday, October 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68790-68798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22483]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 180
[Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0083 (HM-219B)]
RIN 2137-AF30
Hazardous Materials: Response to an Industry Petition To Reduce
Regulatory Burden for Cylinder Requalification Requirements
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is amending the requirements of the requalification periods for
certain Department of Transportation (DOT) 4-series specification
cylinders in non-corrosive gas service in response to a petition for
rulemaking submitted by the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA).
DATES:
Effective date: This rule is effective November 30, 2020.
Voluntary compliance date: Voluntary compliance with all amendments
is authorized October 30, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Ballengee, Standards and
Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Overview
II. Background
A. Summary of Historical Changes to the Regulatory Text
B. HM-233F Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rule
C. Petition P-1696
D. Statement of Enforcement Discretion
E. HM-219B Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Executive Order 13924
III. NPRM Comment Discussion
A. Comments Related to the Requalification Periods
B. Initial Requalification Periods; Subsequent Requalification
Periods via Volumetric Expansion Testing
C. Subsequent Requalification via Proof Pressure Testing
D. Comments Related to the Requalifier Identification Number
E. Miscellaneous Comments
IV. Changes Being Adopted
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
List of Subjects
I. Overview
PHMSA is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR
parts 171-180) for certain commonly used DOT 4-series specification
cylinders in non-corrosive gas service. This final rule authorizes 12-
year initial and subsequent requalification periods for volumetric
expansion testing and a 12-year initial requalification period for
proof pressure testing. This final rule does not modify the existing
10-year subsequent requalification periods for proof pressure testing.
In addition, it makes clarifying and conforming edits to the
requalification table in Sec. 180.209(a) and the text in paragraph
(e). This final rule provides regulatory relief by reducing
requalification-related costs for propane marketers, distributors, and
others in non-corrosive gas service without reducing safety. PHMSA also
withdraws its Statement of Enforcement Discretion issued on March 17,
2017, as of the effective date of this final rule.
II. Background
A. Summary of Historical Changes to the Regulatory Text
As further discussed throughout this section, the requalification
periods for volumetric expansion and proof pressure testing--to include
the first requalification after manufacture (``initial
requalification'') and the recurring requalifications required after
the initial requalification (``subsequent requalification(s)'')--have
evolved through various regulatory actions. Table 1 summarizes the
history of changes to the timelines for requalification by volumetric
expansion and proof pressure testing that are the subject of this
rulemaking. The requalification time periods memorialized in Table 1 as
having been in place ``Prior to HM-233F'' date from 1964.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Interstate Commerce Commission, Explosives and Other
Dangerous Articles, 29 FR 18651 (Dec. 29, 1964) (introducing
requalification period requirements at Note 2 to Sec.
173.34(e)(9)).
[[Page 68791]]
Table 1--History of Changes to the Timeline for Volumetric Expansion and Proof Pressure Testing and
Requalification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPGA
NPGA comment to
Prior to HM- HM-233F petition (P- HM-219B NPRM (i.e., HM-219B
233F final rule 1696) NPRM NPGA final rule
(years) (years) (years) (years) Alternative) (years)
(years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Period for Volumetric 12 10 12 12 12 12
Expansion and Proof Pressure
Testing.........................
Volumetric Expansion 12 10 12 12 12 12
Subsequent Requalification
Periods.....................
Proof Pressure Subsequent 7 10 7 10 12 10
Requalification Periods.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. HM-233F Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rule
On January 30, 2015, PHMSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Special
Permits (MAP-21) (RRR)'' [Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0042 (HM-233F); 80 FR
5339].\2\ The HM-233F NPRM proposed to adopt provisions contained in a
number of widely-used or longstanding special permits with an
established safety record. Following a 60-day comment period, PHMSA
published a final rule on January 21, 2016, that codified provisions
from most of those special permits in the HMR [81 FR 3635].\3\ The HM-
233F final rule became effective on February 22, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Special Permits NPRM (MAP-
21) (RRR), 80 FR 5339 (Jan. 30, 2015) (docket no. PHMSA-2013-0042-
0001, available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2013-0042-0001).
\3\ Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Special Permits Final Rule
(MAP-21) (RRR), 81 FR 3636 (Jan. 21, 2016) (docket no. PHMSA-2013-
0042-0030, available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2013-0042-0030).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to publication of the HM-233F final rule, Sec. 180.209(e)
authorized DOT 4-series cylinders used exclusively for non-corrosive,
gaseous hazardous materials to be requalified by volumetric expansion
every 12 years. Alternatively, these cylinders were authorized to be
requalified by the proof pressure test method after a 12-year initial
requalification period and then every 7 years thereafter for subsequent
requalification. The HM-233F final rule amended Sec. 180.209(e) to
revise both requalification periods to 10 years for DOT 4B, 4BW, 4BA,
or 4E specification cylinders used exclusively for non-corrosive,
gaseous hazardous materials.
A volumetric expansion test ensures that a cylinder is free of
leaks and determines the total expansion (i.e., the total increase in a
cylinder's volume due to application of the test pressure) and
permanent expansion (i.e., the permanent increase in a cylinder's
volume after the test pressure is released) of a cylinder at a given
pressure. The volumetric expansion test is conducted by either the
water jacket or direct expansion methods. The water jacket method
measures the difference between the volume of water a cylinder
externally displaces at test pressure and the volume of water a
cylinder externally displaces at ambient pressure; in contrast, the
direct expansion method measures the amount of water forced into a
cylinder at test pressure, adjusted for the compressibility of water,
as a means of determining the expansion of cylinder volume. See Sec.
180.203. A proof pressure test is conducted by interior pressurization
without the determination of a cylinder's expansion. While a proof
pressure test may also detect leaks, its intended purpose is to verify
whether a cylinder can withstand pressure above its intended operating
pressure without permanent damage. Both volumetric expansion and proof
pressure tests can be used to meet the requalification requirements in
Sec. 180.209(e); however, they are not equivalent testing measures and
each provide certain advantages. Notably, the volumetric expansion test
has the comparative benefit of determining the cylinder's total
expansion and the amount of permanent damage to the cylinder. The proof
pressure test, meanwhile, is less difficult to perform.
Among the special permits that PHMSA proposed to incorporate into
the HMR in the HM-233F NPRM were the provisions of DOT Special Permit
(DOT-SP) 12084 issued to Honeywell International Inc.\4\ DOT-SP 12084
had authorized the requalification via proof pressure testing of DOT
4B, 4BA, or 4BW cylinders for 11 additional non-corrosive gases not
listed in the version of Sec. 180.209(e) that was in effect at that
time. The HM-233F NPRM proposed to revise Sec. 180.209(e) by replacing
the list of specific hazardous materials within that provision with
broader language extending Sec. 180.209(e) to any non-corrosive gases
commercially free from corroding components.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See DOT-SP 12084, available at: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/approvals-and-permits/hazmat/file-serve/offer/SP12084.pdf/offerserver/SP12084.
\5\ As defined in Sec. 180.203, ``commercially free of
corrosive components'' means a hazardous material having a dew point
at or below minus 46.7 [deg]C (minus 52 [deg]F) at 101kPa (1
atmosphere) and free of components that will adversely react with
the cylinder (e.g., chemical stress corrosion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the HM-233F NPRM, PHMSA also proposed to amend the
requalification periods for both the volumetric expansion and proof
pressure tests in Sec. 180.209(e). Specifically, PHMSA proposed to
standardize initial and subsequent requalification periods to 10 years
for both the volumetric expansion test (previously 12 years for both
initial and subsequent requalification) and the proof pressure test
(previously 7 years for subsequent requalification after an initial 12-
year requalification period). This change was not prompted by any
safety concerns pertaining to the then-controlling initial and
subsequent requalification periods. Rather, PHMSA sought to align the
requalification periods in Sec. 180.209(e) with the internationally-
recognized and validated 10-year (initial and subsequent)
requalification periods for United Nations (UN) pressure receptacles,
which PHMSA had previously determined were safe enough to merit
incorporation into the HMR at Sec. 180.207(c).\6\ Due to an
administrative oversight, those proposed changes to Sec. 180.209(e)
were not discussed in the preamble of the HM-233F NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 71 FR 33858, at 33869-70 (June 12, 2006). Section
180.207(d) makes the 10-year initial and subsequent requalification
periods available for both volumetric expansion and proof pressure
testing methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA received no adverse comments to any of the proposed changes
to Sec. 180.209(e) and therefore adopted the revisions as proposed in
the final rule. While the effective date of the final rule was February
22, 2016, PHMSA allowed for delayed compliance with the revised Sec.
180.209(e) to begin on January 23, 2017.
C. Petition P-1696
On January 13, 2017, NPGA submitted a petition to PHMSA, titled
``Petition for
[[Page 68792]]
Rulemaking and Emergency Stay Cylinder Requalification Requirements''
[PHMSA-2017-0019 (P-1696)].\7\ NPGA requested that PHMSA amend Sec.
180.209(e) to restore the initial and subsequent requalification
periods for both volumetric expansion and proof pressure testing in
Sec. 180.209(e) to those authorized prior to the HM-233F final rule,
as well as make conforming changes to the table in Sec. 180.209(a).
NPGA also requested that PHMSA issue an emergency stay of enforcement
of HM-233F's amendments to Sec. 180.209(e) while PHMSA was considering
its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NPGA Petition for Rulemaking & Emergency Stay Cylinder
Requalification Requirements, available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2017-0083-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the petition, NPGA advised PHMSA that the HM-233F rulemaking
created regulatory confusion and imposed substantial compliance costs.
Specifically, NPGA asserted that the regulatory changes to the
requalification periods for volumetric expansion testing (initial and
subsequent requalifications) and proof pressure testing (initial
requalification) created confusion in the propane industry. NPGA stated
that it was unclear whether cylinders manufactured or requalified
within the last 10 to 12 years had to be requalified immediately, since
prior to the HM-233F final rule their requalification would not have
been required until 12 years from the date of manufacture (volumetric
expansion and proof pressure testing) or their last requalification
(volumetric expansion testing). Furthermore, NPGA stated that the more
frequent subsequent requalification by volumetric expansion testing
(i.e., every 10 years instead of every 12 years) required by the HM-
233F final rule would increase requalification testing costs. NPGA
further explained that because current industry practice \8\ is to mark
newly manufactured cylinders eligible for requalification in accordance
with Sec. 180.209(e) with a 12-year requalification mark, industry
would have to train employees to ignore such markings. NPGA also
contended that costs associated with training on the revised
requalification periods for volumetric expansion and proof pressure
testing would not be accompanied by a corresponding safety benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NPGA acknowledges this industry practice is voluntary and
not required by the HMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 2, 2017, PHMSA met with NPGA representatives to: (1)
Better understand NPGA's concerns; (2) identify existing industry
practice and request data to assess the impact of the revised cylinder
requalification periods; and (3) evaluate the merits of undertaking a
rulemaking and issuing an emergency stay of enforcement as recommended
by NPGA. NPGA reiterated its position that the change in
requalification intervals would impose unanticipated industry costs.
Furthermore, NPGA conveyed that a majority of its associate members
requalify certain DOT 4-series specification cylinders by volumetric
expansion testing.
Pursuant to Sec. 106.105, PHMSA accepted NPGA's petition \9\ on
March 7, 2017, and initiated this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ DOT P-1696 Acceptance Letter, available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2017-0019-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Statement of Enforcement Discretion
On March 17, 2017, PHMSA issued a Statement of Enforcement
Discretion while it reviewed NPGA's petition for rulemaking.\10\ This
Statement of Enforcement Discretion specified that DOT 4-series
specification cylinders requalified by volumetric expansion in
accordance with Sec. 180.209(e) may have a 10- or 12-year
requalification period without any enforcement action taken. The
Statement of Enforcement Discretion is withdrawn upon the effective
date of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Notice Regarding the Requalification Period for Department
of Transportation (DOT) Specification Cylinders, available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2017-0083-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. HM-219B Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Executive Order 13924
On August 6, 2019, PHMSA published an NPRM [Docket No. PHMSA-2017-
0083-0004 (HM-219B); 84 FR 38180] \11\ proposing changes to the
requalification periods in Sec. 180.209(e) and clarifying edits to the
table in paragraph (a). Specifically, the HM-219B NPRM proposed to
return the initial and subsequent requalification periods for
volumetric expansion tests to 12 years, and to return the initial
requalification period for proof pressure testing to 12 years. In
addition, PHMSA proposed to revise the title of Sec. 180.209(e) to
reflect the content of that paragraph better. PHMSA also proposed to
amend the table in Sec. 180.209(a) to reflect the baseline
requalification period and the alternate requalification period
allowances for certain DOT specification cylinders consistent with the
amendments to Sec. 180.209(e); to remove any reference to paragraph
(e) for DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AL, 3AX, 3AAX, 3B, 3BN, and 4AA480 cylinders,
which are not authorized for requalification by the proof pressure
method in Sec. 180.209(e); to add a ``7'' for DOT 4B, 4BA, or 4BW
cylinders, which are authorized for requalification every 7 or 12
years, instead of 5 years, when used as a fire extinguisher in
accordance with Sec. 180.209(j); \12\ and to make additional editorial
corrections for consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Hazardous Materials: Response to an Industry Petition to
Reduce Regulatory Burden for Cylinder Requalification Requirements
NPRM, 84 FR 38180 (Aug. 6, 2019), available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2017-0083-0004.
\12\ As proposed in the NPRM, this is a conforming amendment for
consistency between the table in paragraph (a) and the provisions in
paragraph (j), which was inadvertently deleted in the HM-233F final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM mirrored NPGA's proposed amendments except that it
retained the HM-233F final rule's 10-year period for subsequent proof
pressure requalification testing. In the HM-219B NPRM, PHMSA explained
that the extended period for subsequent requalification by proof
pressure test (10 years versus 7 years) may provide savings that
outweigh the costs of compliance training on the HM-233F final rule and
requested comment on the potential costs or savings that may result.
The comment period closed on October 7, 2019. PHMSA received
comments in response to the HM-219B NPRM from Gentry Investigation
Service, LLC (GIS) and NPGA. PHMSA also received comments from The
Chemours Company (Chemours) on October 23, 2019. Consistent with
Sec. Sec. 5.13(i)(5) and 106.70(b), PHMSA considered Chemours's late-
filed comments given its interest in the rulemaking and the absence of
additional expense or delay resulting from consideration of its
comments.
Following the closing of the comment period, Executive Order 13924,
``Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery'' (85 FR 31353, May
22, 2020) directed Federal agencies to respond to the economic harm
caused by the novel coronavirus by reviewing their regulations to
identify regulatory requirements for potential rescission or
modification to reduce regulatory burdens and thereby promote economic
growth. Executive Order 13924 at section 4. PHMSA understands the cost
savings expected from the HMR amendments adopted in this final rule to
be consistent with Executive Order 13924's mandate.
III. NPRM Comment Discussion
A. Comments Related to the Requalification Periods
In its comment to the NPRM, NPGA requested that PHMSA modify
[[Page 68793]]
Sec. 180.209(e) to permit a universal 12-year period for both initial
and subsequent requalification by either volumetric expansion or proof
pressure testing. This is a departure from NPGA's initial
recommendation in P-1696 to revert to the historical 7-year subsequent
requalification periods for proof pressure testing. Chemours and GIS,
meanwhile, expressed their support for the initial and subsequent
requalification periods for volumetric expansion and proof pressure
testing provided in the HM-219B NPRM. In this final rule, PHMSA is
adopting the changes to the requalification periods for volumetric
expansion (initial and subsequent requalification) and proof pressure
testing (initial requalification) proposed in the HM-219B NPRM.
B. Initial Requalification Periods; Subsequent Requalification Periods
via Volumetric Expansion Testing
PHMSA received no comments opposing the NPRM's proposal to amend
Sec. 180.209(e) to restore a 12-year initial requalification testing
period by both volumetric expansion and proof pressure testing, and 12-
year subsequent requalification periods by volumetric expansion
testing.
DOT 4-series cylinders--which are commonly used and include
everything from small propane cylinders typically used in home grilling
applications to larger cylinders used in the construction industry--
have been in service as authorized packaging types for decades. Despite
millions of these cylinders having entered into service and having been
requalified as provided by the HMR before the HM-233F final rule, there
have been few reported incidents, and PHMSA is unaware of any
systematic safety concerns. The historically safe use of these
cylinders demonstrates that restoration of the previously-authorized
12-year requalification periods proposed by the NPRM will not have an
adverse effect on safety.
PHMSA further notes that reversion to the historical 12-year
subsequent requalification period for volumetric expansion testing as
proposed in the NPRM would likely not impose substantial regulatory
costs. Even though the HM-233F final rule provided that its 10-year
subsequent requalification period for volumetric expansion testing
would become mandatory in January 2017, the Statement of Enforcement
Discretion issued in March 2017 gave regulated entities a reprieve from
that more frequent subsequent requalification testing requirement until
the conclusion of this rulemaking. The NPRM subsequently signaled
PHMSA's intent to revert to the historical 12-year subsequent
requalification period for volumetric expansion testing. PHMSA
therefore expects that few regulated entities have adjusted their
compliance programs and training in conformity with this element of the
HM-233F final rule such that they would incur additional costs from
reverting to the historical 12-year subsequent requalification for
volumetric expansion as proposed in the NPRM.
C. Subsequent Requalification via Proof Pressure Testing
Prior to the HM-233F final rule, the provision for a 7-year
subsequent requalification period by proof pressure testing had
remained unchanged since 1964. In the HM-219B NPRM, PHMSA invited
comments on the potential costs or savings that may result from
maintaining 10-year subsequent requalification periods via proof
pressure testing established by the HM-233F final rule, instead of
returning to the historical 7-year subsequent requalification period by
proof pressure testing as proposed by NPGA in its petition. Chemours
and GIS expressed support for retaining the 10-year subsequent
requalification periods for proof pressure testing contemplated by the
NPRM. NPGA in its comments submitted in response to the NPRM agreed
with the other commenters that PHMSA should not revert to the original
7-year subsequent requalification period by proof pressure testing as
it had originally urged in its petition for rulemaking--and now called
for extension of subsequent requalification periods for proof pressure
testing to 12 years. NPGA contended that its newly-iterated preference
would further reduce regulatory burdens without adversely impacting
safety.
In the HM-233F final rule, PHMSA sought to align the subsequent
requalification period for proof pressure testing in Sec. 180.209(e)
with the 10-year subsequent proof pressure test requalification period
for UN-specification cylinders included in the HMR at Sec. 180.207(c).
While PHMSA expected that a longer subsequent requalification period
would promote consistency within the HMR and thereby enhance compliance
while reducing regulatory burdens, NPGA's petition for rulemaking
argued that this and other changes adopted in the HM-233F final rule
would in fact entail substantial costs to update compliance programs
and train personnel.
PHMSA notes the 10-year period for subsequent proof pressure
testing has been codified within the HMR since the HM-233F final rule
became effective in February 2016, and regulated entities must have
been in compliance since January 2017.\13\ Any compliance program
adjustments and additional training required to account for the change
from a 7-year to 10-year subsequent requalification period for proof
pressure testing have likely already been implemented. Further,
regulated entities remain free to continue subsequent requalification
of cylinders via proof pressure testing more frequently--every 7 years
instead of every 10 years--than as required by Sec. 180.209(e). On the
other hand, if PHMSA were now to revert to the historical 7-year
subsequent requalification period requirement for proof pressure
testing as NPGA's petition for rulemaking had recommended, the result
would be additional compliance program and training costs for those
entities that had adjusted their compliance and training programs in
conformity with the changes introduced by the HM-233F final rule. Given
the absence from the administrative record of any safety benefits that
could be evaluated against the regulatory costs associated with
reverting to the historical 7-year subsequent requalification period
for proof pressure testing, PHMSA has decided against so amending Sec.
180.209(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The March 17, 2017, Statement of Enforcement discretion
pertained only to subsequent requalification by volumetric expansion
testing, not proof pressure testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, PHMSA finds that the administrative record does not
justify 12-year subsequent requalification periods for proof pressure
testing. Although NPGA contends that its recently-iterated proposal
would yield cost savings, the administrative record contains little
evidence that extending the subsequent requalification periods for
proof pressure-tested cylinders to 12 years would provide an equivalent
level of safety to the 10-year subsequent requalification periods
introduced into Sec. 180.209(e) by the HM-233F final rule. Unlike the
initial requalification and subsequent requalification via volumetric
expansion, PHMSA cannot draw on the historical experience under HMR
language predating the HM-233F final rule to evaluate the safety
impacts of a 12-year subsequent requalification period via proof
pressure testing.
Furthermore, PHMSA notes that while both volumetric expansion and
proof pressure tests can be used to meet the requirements in Sec.
180.209(e), they are not equivalent testing measures as suggested by
NPGA. Volumetric
[[Page 68794]]
expansion testing is a more rigorous testing method than proof pressure
testing in that it verifies not only the pressure integrity of a
cylinder (as proof pressure testing does), but also the absence of
permanent expansion to a cylinder--which may be an indication of
extensive wall thinning or other types of damage. This fundamental
difference between the two test methods was the basis for their
different subsequent requalification periods in the HMR for nearly five
decades, and NPGA has not provided data demonstrating that proof
pressure testing is sufficient to verify the integrity of a cylinder
over successive 12-year subsequent requalification periods. Further,
because the potential for compromise of cylinder integrity would
increase over time, PHMSA is unconvinced by NPGA's assertion that PHMSA
should necessarily have the same confidence in the safety of successive
12-year subsequent requalification periods by proof pressure testing as
it does for an initial 12-year requalification period as proposed in
the NPRM.
Therefore, in consideration of the lack of record evidence
presented by NPGA to demonstrate the safety of its revised
recommendation regarding subsequent requalification periods for proof
pressure testing, and the support of other commenters for the current
10-year subsequent requalification period by proof pressure testing,
PHMSA declines to amend this element of Sec. 180.209(e) as requested
by NPGA in its comments on the NPRM.
D. Comments Related to the Requalifier Identification Number
GIS requested that PHMSA either modify Sec. Sec. 180.209(g) and
180.215(a)(1)-(2) to include a reference to a Visual Only Requalifier
Identification Number (VIN) as an acceptable test method for
requalifying cylinders, or add a new definition in Sec. 171.8 for
``Requalifier Identification Number (RIN)'' to clarify the different
types of RINs issued by the DOT. GIS also recommended modifying Sec.
180.213(d) to include a second example to demonstrate the proper
marking method for a VIN and updating the existing DOT publication ``Is
Your Propane Cylinder Safe?'' upon completion of the final rule. NPGA
expressed support for GIS's proposed HMR modifications and updates to
relevant PHMSA guidance documents. Chemours did not comment on GIS's
proposals.
PHMSA notes that the revisions GIS recommended were not discussed
in the NPRM. Section 180.203 of the HMR defines a ``Requalification
identification number or RIN'' as a code assigned by the DOT to
identify a cylinder requalification, repair, or rebuilding facility.
The Associate Administrator of Hazmat Safety issues a RIN as evidence
that an applicant is authorized to requalify DOT specification or
special permit cylinders, or TC, CTC, CRC, or BTC specification
cylinders or tubes, or UN pressure receptacles based on certain
evaluation requirements. See Sec. 107.805(d). A VIN is a subset of a
RIN, but more specifically, the VIN pertains only to cylinders that may
be requalified visually in accordance with Sec. 180.209(g). PHMSA
agrees that this section would benefit from additional clarity but is
concerned that GIS's proposed changes to Sec. Sec. 180.209(g) and
180.215(a)(1)-(2) may cause unnecessary confusion to stakeholders who
hold an existing RIN without sufficient notice. As such, PHMSA is not
adopting GIS's recommended revisions to the HMR at this time as we
would like to allow for further stakeholder engagement and opportunity
to comment on any proposed changes before making this determination.
PHMSA may consider these changes for inclusion in a future rulemaking.
Finally, PHMSA agrees with GIS's observation that the existing DOT
publication ``Is Your Propane Cylinder Safe?'' will need to be updated
to conform to the HMR amendments introduced in this final rule.
E. Miscellaneous Comments
GIS expressed its belief that the regulatory changes proposed in
the NPRM are inconsistent with the objective of the Regulatory
Cooperation Council (RCC) of more closely aligning Canadian and U.S.
regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials. NPGA
expressed disagreement with GIS's comment as it does not believe the
HMR amendments proposed in the NPRM deviate from the objectives of the
RCC, as PHMSA and Transport Canada remain free to continue working to
align better their respective regulatory standards. PHMSA agrees with
NPGA's comments on this issue and will continue to work with Transport
Canada to ensure international regulatory cooperation and reduce,
eliminate, and prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.
GIS provided background information about industry practice and
representation included in NPGA's petition. GIS explained that only one
domestic manufacturer was marking the collar of the cylinder with a
requalification requirement and that this manufacturer stopped after
publication of the HM-233F final rule, whereas NPGA's petition
presented this practice as widespread. In addition, GIS disagreed with
NPGA's statement that most DOT 4-series specification cylinders are
requalified by volumetric expansion testing. GIS contends that while
large liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders may be requalified by
volumetric expansion or proof pressure testing, it believes most of the
LPG industry prefer a visual-only inspection. PHMSA revised the
training cost savings in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
after taking into consideration the clarifying information submitted by
GIS.
IV. Changes Being Adopted
After reviewing the comments received and taking into consideration
the scope of the rulemaking as outlined, PHMSA is adopting the
amendments as proposed in the NPRM. This final rule revises the
requalification periods in Sec. 180.209(e) for DOT 4-series
specification cylinders in non-corrosive gas service to allow for a 12-
year initial requalification by volumetric expansion testing or proof
pressure testing, and 12-year subsequent requalification periods by
volumetric expansion testing. It does not disturb existing HMR
provisions providing for 10-year subsequent requalification periods for
proof pressure testing. In addition, it makes clarifying and conforming
editorial changes to the requalification table in Sec. 180.209(a), as
well as the title of Sec. 180.209(e) to reflect the content of that
paragraph.
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
This final rule is published under the authority of the Federal
Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C.
5101 et seq.), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
``prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including
security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign
commerce.'' The Secretary's authority is delegated to PHMSA at 49 CFR
1.97. This final rule proposes to amend the requalification periods for
certain DOT 4-series specification cylinders under relief provided in
Sec. 180.209(e) and to revise the requalification table in Sec.
180.209(a) accordingly.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is considered a nonsignificant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
[[Page 68795]]
(``Regulatory Planning and Review'') \14\ and therefore was not
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This final rule
is also considered a nonsignificant rulemaking under the DOT rulemaking
procedures at 49 CFR part 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 12866 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.'' Additionally,
Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to provide a meaningful
opportunity for public participation, which also reinforces
requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure
Act (5 U.S.C. 553 et seq.). Similarly, DOT regulations at Sec. 5.5(f)-
(g) require that regulations issued by PHMSA and other DOT Operating
Administrations ``should be designed to minimize burdens and reduce
barriers to market entry whenever possible, consistent with the
effective promotion of safety'' and should generally ``not be issued
unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.''
PHMSA's preliminary analysis found that the proposed changes would
result in total net cost savings of approximately $142.4 million over
10 years, or $20.3 million annualized, when discounted at 7 percent.
PHMSA made a minor revision to exclude training-related cost savings
that do not appear warranted after public comment and clarification
presented by GIS. With the revision, PHMSA finds total net cost savings
of approximately $140.5 million over 10 years, discounted at 7 percent,
or $20.0 million annualized at 7 percent. Please see the rulemaking
docket for the Final RIA for additional details.
C. Executive Order 13771
This final rule is expected to be a deregulatory action under
Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs'').\15\ Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed
rule can be found in the Final RIA included in the rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 24, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Executive Order 13132
This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism'') \16\ and
the President's memorandum (``Preemption'') that was published in the
Federal Register on May 22, 2009 [74 FR 24693]. Executive Order 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.'' This
rulemaking will preempt State, local, and Tribal requirements but does
not propose 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. Therefore, the consultation and funding
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal hazmat law contains an express preemption provision at 49
U.S.C. 5125(b) that preempts State, local, and Indian Tribal
requirements that are not substantively the same as Federal
requirements on certain subjects, including the packing, handling,
labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous materials. Because this
rulemaking addresses the design, manufacture, fabrication, marking,
maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or
container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use
in transporting hazardous material, it preempts State, local, and
Indian Tribe requirements that are not substantively the same as the
Federal requirements introduced in this rulemaking. This rulemaking is
necessary to provide cost savings and regulatory flexibility to the
propane industry.
E. Executive Order 13175
This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'') \17\ and DOT Order
5301.1 ``Department of Transportation Policies, Programs, and
Procedures Affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Tribes.''
Executive Order 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1 require DOT Operating
Administrations to assure meaningful and timely input from Indian
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 and distribution of
power between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This final rule
neither imposes direct compliance costs on Tribal communities, nor has
a substantial direct effect on those communities. Therefore, the
funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 and DOT
Order 5301.1 do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Policies
and Procedures
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
agencies to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines that a rulemaking is not expected to have
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
final rule has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272
(``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking'') \18\
and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts on small
entities are considered properly. This final rule does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 19, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule provides cost savings and regulatory flexibility to the
affected entities, as discussed above and in the Final RIA uploaded to
the rulemaking docket. Specifically, the changes provide relief to
cylinder manufacturers and marketers of the propane industry, including
small entities, by easing requalification requirements with no
anticipated reduction in safety. To the extent that new training is
required for cylinder marketers to understand the 10-year timeframe
applicable to cylinders subsequently requalified by proof pressure
testing, these costs were estimated in the NPRM to represent just 1
percent of the estimated cost savings afforded to the same
entities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Exhibit 8-1--Total Net Cost Savings, in the NPRM. We
divide estimated costs of $1.7 million dollars by $163.6 million in
estimated cost savings (undiscounted figures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, if a small entity wished to forego these training costs,
they could. This is because the applicable timeframe for subsequent
requalification by proof pressure testing prior to HM-233F and this
rule was 7 years. If they so choose, they could still comply with the
HMR by requalifying a cylinder in need of subsequent requalification by
proof pressure testing earlier than required (i.e., within 7 years
instead of 10).
Consideration of alternative proposals for small businesses. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies to establish exceptions and
differing
[[Page 68796]]
compliance standards for small businesses, where it is possible to do
so and still meet the objectives of applicable regulatory statutes.
PHMSA certifies that this final rule does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The changes
are generally intended to provide regulatory flexibility and cost
savings to industry members.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
no person is required to respond to any information collection unless
it has been approved by OMB and displays a valid OMB control number.
Section 1320.8(d) of 5 CFR requires that PHMSA provide interested
members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment
on information and recordkeeping requests.
PHMSA currently accounts for burdens associated with the
requalification of DOT specification cylinders, including DOT 4-series
specification cylinders, in OMB Control No. 2137-0022 titled,
``Testing, Inspection and Marking Requirements for Cylinders.'' This
OMB Control Number includes burdens associated with the requalification
markings, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of DOT
specification cylinders. While this final rule addresses the
requalification of certain DOT 4-series specification cylinders
addressed in this OMB Control Number, PHMSA believes that the overall
effect on the number of respondents and burden hours are negligible in
relation to the number of respondents and burden hours associated with
this OMB Control Number. In the NPRM, PHMSA solicited comment on the
information collection burdens associated with the revision to
requalification of certain DOT 4-series specification cylinders and
received no such comments.
H. Regulation Identifier Number
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 can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). It does
not result in costs of $100 million or more, adjusted for inflation or
more in any year 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 rulemaking.
J. Environmental Assessment
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of
major Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The
Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 CFR part
1500) require Federal agencies to conduct an environmental review
considering (1) the need for the action; (2) alternatives to the
action; (3) probable environmental impacts of the action and
alternatives; and (4) comments by agencies and persons consulted during
the consideration process. DOT Order 5610.1C ``Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts,'' establishes departmental
procedures for the evaluation of environmental impacts under NEPA and
its implementing regulations.
1. Need for the Action
In response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the regulated
community, PHMSA is amending the HMR to update the requalification
period for certain DOT 4-series specification cylinders in non-
corrosive gas service. This action is intended to provide regulatory
relief to members of the propane industry, including small entities, by
easing requirements with no anticipated reduction in safety.
2. Alternatives Considered
In developing the final rule, PHMSA considered the following
alternatives:
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
If PHMSA were to select the No Action Alternative, it would not
proceed with any rulemaking on this subject and the current regulatory
standards would remain in effect. This alternative would not address
NPGA's petition for rulemaking. As such, Sec. 180.209(e) would not be
amended, and the initial and subsequent requalification periods for
volumetric expansion and proof pressure testing would remain at a 10-
year period. The initial and subsequent requalification periods for the
volumetric expansion test would not be extended to 12 years, and the
requalification periods for the proof pressure test would not be
extended to an initial 12-year period followed by 10-year subsequent
requalification periods. Additionally, the Statement of Enforcement
Discretion that PHMSA issued on March 17, 2017, would be withdrawn such
that the regulated entities would be required to comply with the 10-
year standardized periods for initial and subsequent requalification
via volumetric expansion or proof pressure testing established by the
HM-233F final rule.
Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative would revise the requalification periods
in Sec. 180.209(e) for DOT 4-series specification cylinders to allow
for a 12-year period for initial and subsequent volumetric expansion
testing and an initial 12-year period followed by a 10-year
requalification period for proof pressure testing. In addition, the
Statement of Enforcement Discretion that PHMSA issued on March 17,
2017, would be withdrawn.
Alternative 3: NPGA Alternative
Due to public comment from NPGA, PHMSA considered an alternative in
addition to the No Action and Preferred Alternative. This alternative
would address NPGA's comment to the NPRM by standardizing 12-year
initial and subsequent requalification periods for the volumetric
expansion and proof pressure tests for DOT 4-series specification
cylinders. In addition, the Statement of Enforcement Discretion that
PHMSA issued on March 17, 2017, would be withdrawn.
3. Environmental Impacts
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
If PHMSA were to select the No Action Alternative, current
regulations would remain in place and no new provisions would be added.
This alternative would not address NPGA's petition for rulemaking. The
current regulatory requirements, with shorter requalification intervals
for both volumetric expansion and proof pressure testing, are more
conservative and, assuming full compliance, may provide more
opportunities to identify cylinders with defects so that they could be
repaired or removed from service. However, the effect on the quantity
of identified defects is uncertain even with the shorter timeframe of
the No Action Alternative. For example, some cylinders would remain in
service irrespective of the shorter timeframe, given Sec. 180.205(c),
which specifies that a cylinder filled before the requalification
becomes due may remain in service until it is emptied. Furthermore,
Sec. 180.209(c) provides that
[[Page 68797]]
a DOT 4-series cylinder (except a 4L cylinder) must be requalified
before being refilled if at any time it shows evidence of a leak or of
internal or external corrosion, denting, bulging, or rough usage to the
extent that it is likely to be weakened appreciably, or that has lost 5
percent or more of its official tare weight. Therefore, regardless of
the requalification period, no cylinder may be filled and offered for
transportation if it has evidence of damage.
In addition, while the failure of a DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, or 4E
specification cylinder could result in a release of hazmat, which could
in turn destroy property or cause environmental damage, PHMSA's
incident data provides very few records indicating environmental damage
resulting from cylinder incidents (of any type). Queried on April 30,
2020, to cover incidents occurring from 2000 to 2019, PHMSA's incident
data provides only four cylinder incidents that indicate environmental
damage.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 5800.1 incident reports I-2005030510, I-2008090269, I-
2010050100, and I-2010050100, available to query at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat-program-management-data-and-statistics/data-operations/incident-statistics (Hazmat Incident Report Search
Tool). Hazmat incidents may be under-reported to PHMSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative amends the requalification period for DOT
4-series specification cylinders in non-corrosive gas service, which is
expected to result in decreased regulatory and economic burden. PHMSA
does not anticipate that increased cylinder failures will occur because
PHMSA believes that prior standards were conservative, as represented
by the long-standing use of this common cylinder type and the lack of
related incidents referenced in 5800.1 incident reports. Additionally,
the requirements in Sec. 180.209(c)--as referenced in the No Action
Alternative--would still apply. The change clarifies and broadens
regulatory requalification periods, ensuring consistency with training
programs developed within the industry.
Alternative 3: NPGA Alternative
If PHMSA were to select the NPGA Alternative, the initial and
subsequent requalification periods for the volumetric expansion and
proof pressure tests would be extended to 12 years. However, the
existing safety record does not justify the proposed universal 12-year
interval for proof pressure testing. Increased cylinder failures could
occur. While both volumetric expansion and proof pressure tests can be
used to meet the requirements in Sec. 180.209(e), they are not
equivalent testing measures as claimed by NPGA.
PHMSA has selected the Preferred Alternative. There are no
anticipated significant impacts in the release of environmental
pollutants under either the No Action or Preferred Alternative.
However, fewer trips transporting cylinders for retest may result in
minor reductions to air pollutants, including greenhouse gases.
4. Agencies Consulted
PHMSA has coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration, the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad
Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard in the development of this
final rule.
5. Conclusion
PHMSA finds that no significant environmental impact will result
from this final rule. PHMSA received no comments related to safety or
environmental impacts that may result from the changes adopted in this
rulemaking.
K. Privacy Act
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 https://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.
L. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis
Under Executive Order 13609 (``Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation'') \21\ agencies must 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. 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. This final
rule does not impact international trade, and the amendments being
adopted in this final rule do not preclude discussion with PHMSA's
Canadian counterparts to align U.S. and Canadian cylinder
requalification regulations more closely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 77 FR 26413 (Nov. 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'') \22\
requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for
any ``significant energy action.'' Under the executive order, a
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
(normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates, or is
expected to lead to the promulgation of, a final rule or regulation
(including a notice of inquiry, ANPRM, and NPRM) that (1)(i) is a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is designated by
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
as a significant energy action. PHMSA received no comments related to
energy impacts that may result from this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 180
Hazardous materials transportation; Motor carriers; Motor vehicle
safety; Packaging and containers; Railroad safety; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends 49 CFR chapter I as
follows:
PART 180--CONTINUING QUALIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PACKAGINGS
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
0
2. In Sec. 180.209, revise Table 1 in paragraph (a) and paragraph (e)
to read as follows:
Sec. 180.209 Requirements for requalification of specification
cylinders.
(a) * * *
[[Page 68798]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (a) --Requalification of Cylinders \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specification under which Minimum test Requalification
cylinder was made pressure (psig) \2\ period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3........................... 3000 psig........... 5.
3A, 3AA..................... 5/3 times service 5, 10, or 12 (see
pressure, except Sec. 180.209(b),
non-corrosive (f), (h), and (j)).
service (see Sec.
180.209(g)).
3AL......................... 5/3 times service 5 or 12 (see Sec.
pressure. 180.209(j) and (m)
\3\).
3AX, 3AAX................... 5/3 times service 5.
pressure.
3B, 3BN..................... 2 times service 5 or 10 (see Sec.
pressure (see Sec. 180.209(f)).
180.209(g)).
3E.......................... Test not required... ....................
3HT......................... 5/3 times service 3 (see Sec. Sec.
pressure. 180.209(k) and
180.213(c)).
3T.......................... 5/3 times service 5.
pressure.
4AA480...................... 2 times service 5 or 10 (see Sec.
pressure (see Sec. 180.209(h)).
180.209(g)).
4B, 4BA, 4BW, 4B-240ET...... 2 times service 5, 7, 10, or 12 (see
pressure, except Sec. 180.209(e),
non-corrosive (f), and (j)).
service (see Sec.
180.209(g)).
4D, 4DA, 4DS................ 2 times service 5.
pressure.
4E.......................... 2 times service 5, 10, or 12 (see
pressure, except Sec. 180.209(e)).
non-corrosive
service (see Sec.
180.209(g)).
4L.......................... Test not required... ....................
8, 8AL...................... .................... 10 or 20 (see Sec.
180.209(i)).
Exemption or special permit See current See current
cylinder. exemption or exemption or
special permit. special permit.
Foreign cylinder (see Sec. As marked on 5 (see Sec. Sec.
173.301(j) of this cylinder, but not 180.209(l) and
subchapter for restrictions less than \5/3\ of 180.213(d)(2)).
on use). any service or
working pressure
marking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Any cylinder not exceeding 2 inches outside diameter and less than 2
feet in length is excepted from volumetric expansion test.
\2\ For cylinders not marked with a service pressure, see Sec.
173.301a(b) of this subchapter.
\3\ This provision does not apply to cylinders used for carbon dioxide,
fire extinguisher, or other industrial gas service.
* * * * *
(e) Cylinders in non-corrosive gas service. A cylinder made in
conformance with DOT Specifications 4B, 4BA, 4BW, or 4E protected
externally by a suitable corrosion-resistant coating and used
exclusively for non-corrosive gas that is commercially free from
corroding components may be requalified by volumetric expansion testing
every 12 years instead of every 5 years. As an alternative, the
cylinder may be subjected to a proof pressure test at least two times
the marked service pressure, but this latter type of test must be
repeated every 10 years after expiration of the initial 12-year period.
When subjected to a proof pressure test, the cylinder must be carefully
examined under test pressure and removed from service if a leak or
defect is found.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2020, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Howard R. Elliott,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-22483 Filed 10-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
