{"operation":"document","citation":"85 FR 68790","title":"Hazardous Materials: Response to an Industry Petition To Reduce Regulatory Burden for Cylinder Requalification Requirements","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2020-10-30","effective_on":"2020-11-30","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).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2020-22483.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2020-22483.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2020-22483","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/30/2020-22483/hazardous-materials-response-to-an-industry-petition-to-reduce-regulatory-burden-for-cylinder","body":"Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 211 (Friday, October 30, 2020) [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 ","truncated":true,"body_characters":60311}