[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33014-33016]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15048]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0023; A-1-FRL-9965-10-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; ME; Consumer Products Alternative Control Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (Maine DEP). The SIP revision consists of an
Alternative Control Plan (ACP) for the control of volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from Reckitt Benckiser's Air Wick Air
Freshener Single Phase Aerosol Spray, issued pursuant to Maine's
consumer products rule. This action is being taken in accordance with
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective September 18, 2017,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 18, 2017. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0023 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Description and Evaluation of the State's Submittal
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    Maine's Chapter 152, ``Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Consumer Products'' (Chapter 152) became effective in
the State of Maine on September 1, 2004 and was approved by EPA into
the Maine SIP on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61382). Maine subsequently
amended this rule. The current amended version of the rule became
effective in the State of Maine on December 15, 2007 and was approved
by EPA into the Maine SIP on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30216). Chapter 152
contains VOC content limits for the manufacture and sale of various
consumer products in the state of Maine. Chapter 152 also provides for
state and EPA approval of ACPs by allowing the responsible party the
option of voluntarily applying for such agreements.
    On March 30, 2012, the Maine DEP received an ACP application from
Reckitt Benckiser LLC (Reckitt) for Reckitt's Air Wick Air Freshener
Single-Phase Aerosol Spray pursuant to Chapter 152. The Maine DEP
approved the Reckitt ACP effective April 23, 2013 and on the same day
sent EPA the ACP for approval into the Maine SIP.

II. Description and Evaluation of the State's Submittal

    Reckitt manufactures Air Wick Air Freshener Single-Phase Aerosol
Spray (Product), which is offered for retail sale and wholesale
distribution in the State of Maine. The Product contains 4.6% VOCs by
weight. The Chapter 152 regulatory content limit for single-phase
aerosol air freshener is 30% VOCs by weight. Reckitt's ACP generates
VOC credits, expressed in pounds of VOCs, based on the difference
between the Product VOC content and regulatory VOC limit for each unit
sold in the State of Maine. Credits generated are subject to the
conditions in the ACP Approval. Reckitt shall monitor Maine sales of
the Product and each calendar quarter shall provide to the Maine DEP
accurate records and documentation as a basis for compliance reporting.
Only sales in the State of Maine that are substantiated by accurate
documentation shall be used in the calculation of VOC emissions and
emission reductions (surplus reductions). The resulting surplus
reduction credits shall be discounted by 5% prior to the issuance

of the surplus emission reduction certificates by the Maine DEP.
Reckitt must maintain a minimum of three years of detailed
transactional data, traceable to invoice levels. Maine DEP shall issue
surplus reduction certificates which establish and quantify to the
nearest pound of VOC reduced, surplus reductions achieved by Reckitt
operating under the ACP.
    Surplus reduction certificates shall not constitute instruments,
securities, or any other form of property. The issuance, use and
trading of all surplus reductions shall be subject to the conditions
within the ACP. Any surplus reductions issued by Maine DEP may be used
by Reckitt until the reductions expire, are traded to another
responsible party operating under a SIP-approved ACP, or until the ACP
is canceled. A valid surplus reduction shall be in effect starting five
days after the date of issuance by the Maine DEP, for a continuous
period of one year at the end of which period the surplus reduction
shall then expire. Surplus reductions cannot be applied retroactively
to any compliance period prior to the compliance period in which the
reductions were generated. While valid, surplus reductions certificates
can only be used in the State of Maine to:
    (1) Adjust either the Consumer Product ACP emissions of either
Reckitt or another ACP responsible party to which the reductions were
traded, provided the surplus reductions are not to be used by any ACP
responsible party to lower its ACP emissions when its ACP emissions are
equal to or less than the ACP limit during the applicable compliance
period; or
    (2) be traded for the purpose of reconciling another approved
Consumer Product ACP responsible party's shortfalls.
    EPA has reviewed the ACP and has determined that it is approvable.
Reckitt must still, at a minimum, comply with the VOC content limits in
Maine's SIP-approved Chapter 152. However, to the extent that the
company documents, as outlined in the ACP, the sales of Product in
Maine with a VOC content below these limits, the Maine DEP will issue
VOC emission reduction credits that may be used in the future. Since to
date, this is the first and only Consumer Product ACP submitted by the
State of Maine for SIP approval, reduction certificates generated may
only be held for future use until they expire (i.e., for one year).
Certificates generated may only be used after a second Consumer Product
ACP is submitted by Maine, and approved by EPA, into the Maine SIP.
Thus, this SIP revision meets the anti-back sliding requirements of
Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Maine SIP, an ACP for
Reckitt Benckiser's Air Wick Air Freshener Single Phase Aerosol Spray.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed.
    This rule will be effective September 18, 2017 without further
notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by August
18, 2017.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on September 18, 2017 and no further action will
be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
alternative control plan issued by the Maine DEP to Reckitt described
in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have

tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 18, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 5, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart U--Maine

0
2. In Sec.  52.1020(d), the table is amended by adding an entry for
``Reckitt Benckiser's Air Wick Air Freshener Single Phase Aerosol
Spray'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Maine Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State effective   EPA approval date
         Name of source            Permit number           date               \2\              Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Reckitt Benckiser's Air Wick     Alternative                4/23/2013  7/19/2017 [Insert  Issued pursuant to
 Air Freshener Single Phase       Control Plan.                         Federal Register   Chapter 152 Control
 Aerosol Spray.                                                         citation].         of Volatile Organic
                                                                                Compounds from
                                                                                Consumer Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2017-15048 Filed 7-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 211 (Friday, October 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68790-68798]
[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,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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)).

       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

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

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

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

(``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

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

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) * * *

       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


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41464-41466]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16681]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0465; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-044-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters (Type
Certificate Currently Held by AgustaWestland S.p.A.) (Agusta)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Agusta AB139 and AW139 helicopters to require replacing certain single-
braided flexible hydraulic hoses with double-braided flexible hydraulic
hoses. This proposed AD is prompted by occurrences of leaking flexible
hydraulic hoses. The proposed actions are intended to prevent loss of
hydraulic power and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 15,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. For
service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Agusta
Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15, 21019
Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39-
0331-711133; fax 39 0331 711180; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins. You may review the referenced service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2013-0177, dated August 8, 2013,
to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters. EASA advises that leaking hydraulic system flexible hoses
have been reported on in-service helicopters. An investigation
indicated that single braided flexible hydraulic hoses, which are part
of the

original design for Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, may not be
strong enough to cope with the hydraulic system pressure over long
periods. If not corrected, this condition could lead to other hydraulic
system leaks, possibly resulting in loss of hydraulic power and reduced
control of the helicopter, EASA advises. EASA consequently requires
that the flexible single-braided hydraulic hoses be replaced with
flexible double-braided hydraulic hoses.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information
and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    AgustaWestland Bolletino Tecnico No. 139-307, dated June 19, 2013
(BT), calls for replacing certain single braided flexible hydraulic
hoses with double braided flexible hydraulic hoses for Model AB139 and
AW139 helicopters. The BT states that the replacement should be
conducted within 300 flight hours or six months from receipt of the BT,
whichever comes first, to prevent in-service leaks.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 300 hours time-in-service
(TIS), replacing the flexible single-braided hydraulic hose with a
flexible double-braided hydraulic hose. The AD would also prohibit
installing the single-braided flexible hydraulic hose on any
helicopter.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires replacing the flexible single-braided
hydraulic hoses within 300 flight hours or 6 months, whichever occurs
first. This proposed AD requires that the flexible single-braided
hydraulic hoses be replaced within 300 hours TIS. TIS and flight hours
are synonymous.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 115 helicopters of
U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on
these estimates, we expect that replacing the flexible single-braided
hydraulic hoses with flexible double-braided hydraulic flexible hoses
would require 6 work-hours for a labor cost of $510. Parts would cost
$3,089 for a total cost of $3,599 per helicopter, and $413,885 for the
U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Agusta S.p.A. (Type certificate currently held by AgustaWestland
S.p.A.) (Agusta) Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2014-0465; Directorate
Identifier 2013-SW-044-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with
a flexible hydraulic hose, part number (P/N) A494AE2E00E0670X,
A494AE3E00E0424X, A494AE3E00E0530X, A494AE3E00E0570X,
A494AE3E00E0580X, A494AE3E00E0620X, A494AE3E00E0930X,
A494AE6E14E0348X, or A494AE6E21E0330X, installed, certificated in
any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a leak in a hydraulic
system flexible hose. This condition could result in loss of
hydraulic power and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 15, 2014.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 300 hours time-in-service, replace each flexible
hydraulic hose with a double braided flexible hydraulic hose in the
accordance with the Compliance Instructions, Part I, paragraphs 5
through 7; Part II, paragraphs 5 through 7; Part III, paragraphs 5
through 6; Part IV, paragraphs 5 through 6; and Part V, paragraphs 5
through 7; as applicable for your helicopter serial number and
configuration, of AgustaWestland Bolletino Tecnico No. 139-307,
dated June 19, 2013.
    (2) Do not install a flexible hydraulic hose, P/N
A494AE2E00E0670X, A494AE3E00E0424X, A494AE3E00E0530X,
A494AE3E00E0570X, A494AE3E00E0580X, A494AE3E00E0620X,
A494AE3E00E0930X, A494AE6E14E0348X, or A494AE6E21E0330X, on any
helicopter.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0177, dated August 8, 2013. You may
view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. FAA-2014-0465.

 (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2910, Hydraulic
System, Main.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 8, 2014.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2014-16681 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P