Document ID: PHMSA-2017-0083-0009
Agency: phmsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Hazardous Materials: Response to an Industry Petition To Reduce Regulatory Burden for Cylinder Requalification Requirements
Posted Date: 2020-10-30T04:00Z

[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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the 
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
http://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