# Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Amendments Pertaining to DOT-Specification Cylinders (RRR)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-16689

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** July 26, 2016
- **Citation:** 81 FR 48978

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, 173, 178 and 180
[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0140 (HM-234)]
RIN 2137-AE80
Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Amendments Pertaining to DOT-Specification Cylinders (RRR)

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is proposing to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations to revise certain requirements applicable to the manufacture, use, and requalification of DOT-specification cylinders. PHMSA is taking this action in response to petitions for rulemaking submitted by stakeholders and to agency review of the compressed gas cylinders regulations. Specifically, PHMSA is proposing to incorporate by reference or update the references to several Compressed Gas Association publications, amend the filling requirements for compressed and liquefied gases, expand the use of salvage cylinders, and revise and clarify the manufacture and requalification requirements for cylinders.

DATES:

Comments must be submitted by September 26, 2016. To the extent possible, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments as a final rule is developed.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by the docket number PHMSA-2011-0140 (HM-234) by any of the following methods:

•
Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov
.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

•
Fax:
1-202-493-2251.

•
Mail:
Docket Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

•
Hand Delivery:
To the Docket Management System; Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Instructions:
All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this NPRM at the beginning of the comment. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All comments received will be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), including any personal information.

Docket:
For access to the dockets to read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov
or DOT's Docket Operations Office (
see

ADDRESSES
). To access and review the ASME material proposed for incorporation by reference in this rulemaking, please refer to the following Web site:
http://go.asme.org/PHMSA-ASME-PRM
. To access and review the CGA materials proposed for incorporation by reference in this rulemaking, please refer to the following Web site:
https://www.cganet.com/customer/dot.aspx
.

Privacy Act:
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit
http://www.regulations.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eileen Edmonson, Standards and Rulemaking Division, and Mark Toughiry, Mechanical Engineer, Engineering and Research Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, at (202) 366-8553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

II. ANPRM Background

III. Petitions for Rulemaking and Comments Received

IV. Special Permits

V. Agency Initiated Editorial Corrections

VI. Section-by-Section Review

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This NPRM

B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

C. Executive Order 13132

D. Executive Order 13175

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

I. Environmental Assessment

J. Privacy Act

K. International Trade Analysis

I. Executive Summary

Cylinders filled with a Class 2 hazardous material (gas) and offered for transportation must comply with various subparts of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). These include 49 CFR part 173, subpart G, which sets forth the requirements for preparing and packaging gases; 49 CFR part 178, subpart C, which sets forth the specifications for cylinders (
i.e.,
how they should be constructed); and 49 CFR part 180, subpart C, which sets forth the requirements for continued qualification, maintenance, and periodic requalification of cylinders. Additionally, cylinders must meet other requirements in the HMR, such as regulations that address the modal effects on cylinders in transportation including general handling, loading, unloading, and stowage.

PHMSA (also “we” or “us”), in response to petitions for rulemaking submitted by stakeholders and an agency initiated review of the regulations, is proposing changes to the HMR, including but not limited to the following: Incorporating by reference or updating references to several Compressed Gas Association (CGA) publications; amending the filling requirements for compressed and liquefied gases; expanding the use of salvage cylinders; revising and clarifying the manufacture and requalification requirements for cylinders; and adopting a special permit (DOT-SP 14237). This NPRM is also presenting minor and miscellaneous regulatory editorial corrections. Further, PHMSA is addressing the comments received from a previous Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM; 77 FR 31551), and proposing additional revisions that have been requested in petitions received since the ANPRM's 2012 publication. These proposed revisions intend to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining or enhancing the existing level of safety. In this NPRM, PHMSA is responding to 20 petitions for rulemaking submitted by stakeholders.

II. ANPRM Background

On May 29, 2012 [77 FR 31551], PHMSA published an ANPRM to obtain public comment from those likely to be affected by the possible incorporation of 10 petitions for rulemaking and 3 special permits into the HMR. These include cylinder manufacturers (approximately 568 companies); cylinder requalifiers; independent

inspection agencies; commercial establishments that own and use DOT-specification cylinders and UN pressure receptacles; and individuals who export non-UN/ISO compressed gas cylinders. Incorporating these petitions for rulemaking and special permits would update and expand the use of currently authorized industry consensus standards; revise the construction, marking, and testing requirements of DOT-4 series cylinders; clarify the filling requirements for cylinders; discuss the handling of cylinders used in fire suppression system; and revise the requalification and condemnation requirements for cylinders.

The ANPRM comment period closed on August 27, 2012. PHMSA received comments from 13 stakeholders, including compressed gas and/or cylinder manufacturers, cylinder testers, and trade associations representing the compressed gas industry or shippers of hazardous materials. Most comments either answered questions PHMSA posed in the ANPRM or responded to multiple petitions and/or special permits. Regarding the petitions, the comments received were mostly supporting for all but one—P-1515. PHMSA received four comments regarding special permits, and all supported their adoption into the HMR. A list of the commenters, along with the related Docket ID Number, is shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1—ANPRM Commenters and Associated Comments Docket Nos.

Company
Docket ID No.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc

PHMSA-2011-0140-0004
PHMSA-2011-0140-0008
PHMSA-2011-0140-0018

Bancroft Hinchley
PHMSA-2011-0149-0024

Barlen and Associates, Inc
PHMSA-2011-0140-0019

City Carbonic, LLC
PHMSA-2011-0140-0029

Compressed Gas Association

PHMSA-2011-0140-0005
PHMSA-2011-0140-0012
PHMSA-2011-0140-0013
PHMSA-2011-0140-0020

Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc
PHMSA-2011-0140-0026

CTC Certified Training

PHMSA-2011-0140-0001
PHMSA-2011-0140-0023
PHMSA-2011-0140-0030

HMT Associates

PHMSA-2011-0140-0002
PHMSA-2011-0140-0021

Hydro-Test Products, Inc
PHMSA-2011-0140-0017

Manchester Tank
PHMSA-2011-0140-0016

Norris Cylinder
PHMSA-2011-0140-0025

SodaStream USA, Inc
PHMSA-2011-0140-0027

Worthington Cylinder Corporation
PHMSA-2011-0140-0028

III. Petitions for Rulemaking and Comments Received

Table 2 lists the petitions included in the docket for this proceeding. This NPRM addresses 20 total petitions. Ten petitions are associated with the ANPRM, and 10 additional petitions have been included since its publication. This table provides the petition number, the petitioner's name, the docket number on
www.regulations.gov
, a brief summary of the petitioner's requests, the affected sections, and whether or not we are proposing to adopt the petition:

Table 2—Petition Summary

Petition No.
Petitioner
Docket No.
Summary
Proposed affected sections
Proposing to adopt?

P-1499
Compressed Gas Association
PHMSA-2007-28485
Replace the incorporated by reference (IBR) Seventh Edition of the CGA C-6 Standards for Visual Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders with the revised Tenth Edition and update the appropriate references throughout the HMR
§§ 171.7; 172.102 (SP 338); 173.3(d)(9); 173.198(a); 180.205(f)(1); 180.209(c), (b)(1)(iii), (d), (f), (g), (m); 180.211(d)(1)(ii); 180.411(b); 180.510(c)
Yes.

P-1501
Compressed Gas Association
PHMSA-2007-28759
Revise the specification requirements for 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders to provide clarity
§§ 178.50, 178.51, 178.61, 178.68
Yes, in part.

P-1515
Certified Training Company
PHMSA-2008-0101
Adopt changes to the requalification process designed to clarify the regulations in the event CGA Standard C-1, Methods of Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders, is not incorporated
§§ 180.203, 180.205, 180.207, 180.209, 180.211, 180.212, 180.213, 180.215, appendix C to part 180, appendix E to part 180
Yes, except those changes not necessary because of IBR of CGA C-1 under P-1626.

P-1521
Compressed Gas Association
PHMSA-2008-0152
Allow the use of labels described in CGA C-7-2004 on a cylinder contained in an overpack
§ 172.400a(a)(1)(i)
Yes.

P-1538
The Wicks Group, representing Jetboil Inc
PHMSA-2009-0138
Allow § 173.306(a)(1) to permit camping stove cylinders containing liquefied petroleum gas in amounts less than four (4) ounces to be shipped as consumer commodity (ORM-D). Define “capacity” in § 171.8
§§ 171.8, 173.306(a)(1)
No.

P-1539
Matheson Tri-Gas
PHMSA-2009-0140
Allow DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AL cylinders in Division 2.2 Services to be retested every 15 years. Allow DOT 3A, 3AA, and 3AL cylinders packaged with Division 2.1 materials to be requalified every 10 years.
§ 180.209(a)
No.

P-1540
Compressed Gas Association
PHMSA-2009-0146
Require newly manufactured DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders to be marked with the mass weight, tare weight, and water capacity
§ 178.35(f)
Yes.

P-1546
GSI Training Services, Inc.
PHMSA-2009-0250
Allow cylinders used as a component of a fixed fire suppression system to be transported under the exceptions applicable to fire extinguishers
§ 173.309(a)
Yes.

P-1560
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc
PHMSA-2010-0176
Modify the maximum permitted filling densities for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide to include 70.3%, 73.2%, and 74.5% in DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AX, 3AAX, and 3T cylinders
§ 173.304a(a)(2)
No. Addressed by revisions made under rulemaking HM-233F [81 FR 3635].

P-1563
Regulatory Affairs Management Center—3M Package Engineering, Global Dangerous Goods
PHMSA-2010-0208
Authorize an “overpack” as a strong outer package for cylinders listed in the section, except aerosols “2P” and “2Q,” marked with the phrase “inner packagings conform to the prescribed specifications”
§ 173.301 (a)(9)
Uncertain. We are asking for further comment.

P-1572
Barlen and Associates, Inc.
PHMSA-2011-0017
Revise the filling ratio for liquefied compressed gases in MEGCs consistent with Packing Instruction (P200) of the United Nations (UN)—Model Regulations (17th ed. 2011), as specified in § 173.304b; and prohibit liquefied compressed gases in manifolded DOT cylinders from exceeding the filling densities specified in § 173.304a(a)(2)
§§ 173.301(g)(1)(ii) and 173.312
Yes, in part.

P-1580
HMT Associates
PHMSA-2011-0123
Require the burst pressure of the rupture disc on a cylinder “shall not exceed 80% of the minimum cylinder burst pressure and shall not be less than 105% of the cylinder test pressure”
§§ 173.301(f)(4), 173.302(f)(2), 173.304(f)(2)
Yes.

P-1582
Water Systems Council
PHMSA-2011-0135
Revise the limited quantity exception for water pump system tanks to authorize transport of tanks manufactured to American National Standards Institute's Water Systems Council Standard PST-2000-2005(2009)
§ 173.306(g)
Yes.

P-1592
Compressed Gas Association
PHMSA-2012-0173
IBR CGA S-1.1, 2011 Pressure Relief Device Standards, Part 1, Cylinder for Compressed Gas, Fourteenth Edition
§§ 173.301(c), (f) and (g), 173.304a(e), 178.75(f)
Yes.

P-1596
Chemically Speaking, LLC.
PHMSA-2012-0200
Add Class 4 and Class 5 hazardous materials to the hazard classes in an authorized salvage cylinders
§ 173.3(d)(2)
Yes.

P-1622
Worthington Cylinders Corporation
PHMSA-2013-0210
Restrict the internal volume of hazardous materials shipped in a DOT-specification 39 cylinder to not exceed 75 cubic inches
§§ 173.304a and 173.304a(a)(3)
Yes.

P-1626
Compressed Gas Association
PHMSA-2013-0265
IBR CGA C-1-2009, Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders, Tenth Edition (C-1, 2009) as a reference in 49 CFR, and provide for specific language for sections affected
§§ 171.7, 178.36, 178.37, 178.38, 178.39, 178.42, 178.44, 178.45, 178.46, 178.47, 178.50, 178.51, 178.53, 178.55, 178.56, 178.57, 178.58, 178.59, 178.60, 178.61, 178.65, 178.68, 180.205, 180.209
Yes.

P-1628
Compressed Gas Association
PHMSA-2013-0278
IBR CGA C-3-2005, Reaffirmed 2011, Standards for Welding on Thin-Walled, Steel Cylinders, Seventh Edition
§§ 171.7, 178.47, 178.50, 178.51, 178.53, 178.55, 178.56, 178.57, 178.58, 178.59, 178.60, 178.61, 178.65, 178.68, 180.211
Yes.

P-1629
Compressed Gas Association
PHMSA-2014-0012
IBR CGA C-14-2005, Reaffirmed 2010, Procedures for Fire Testing of DOT Cylinder Pressure Relief Device Systems, Fourth Edition, as a reference in 49 CFR
§§ 171.7, 173.301, 173.323
Yes.

P-1630
Compressed Gas Association
PHMSA-2014-0027
Add the term “recondition” for DOT-4L welded insulated cylinders and revise language to clarify when a hydrostatic test must be performed on the inner containment vessel after the DOT-4L welded insulated cylinder has undergone repair
§§ 180.203, 180.211(c), and 180.211(e)
Yes.

P-1499

The CGA submitted P-1499 requesting that PHMSA replace the currently incorporated by reference
C-6 Standards for Visual Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders,
Seventh Edition with the revised Tenth Edition and update the appropriate references throughout the HMR. The Tenth Edition provides enhanced guidance for cylinder requalifiers—including guidance on the inspection of Multiple-Element Gas Containers (MEGCs) and the requirements for thread inspection for cylinders used in corrosive gas service—and clarifies maximum allowable depths and measuring techniques for various types of corrosion.

PHMSA identified approximately 5,000 companies that would be subject to this standard, with the majority being classified as small businesses using the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards (<500 employees). This revision would impose a one-time cost of between $78 and $142 per document depending on the document format (electronic or hard copy) and the purchaser's CGA membership.

Air Products and Chemicals, City Carbonic, CGA, Hydro-Test Products, and Worthington Cylinders support the proposal as discussed in the May 29, 2012 ANPRM. No commenters objected to the proposal.

PHMSA agrees that the Tenth Edition provides improved and updated guidance on inspecting MEGCs. While there were no comments opposed to the incorporation, subsequent to the submission of this petition, a more current updated version of CGA C-6 has been made available (
i.e.,
an eleventh edition). Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to update the IBR of CGA C-6 to the 2013 Eleventh Edition. We invite comment on this course of action.

P-1501

The CGA submitted P-1501 requesting that PHMSA revise the manufacturing requirements for DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders. According to the petition, the current DOT-4 series welded cylinder manufacturing requirements are unclear in some respects and result in varied interpretation by manufacturers and enforcement personnel. The CGA states that although the proposed changes do not present a significant economic impact to any single manufacturer or user, they will enhance regulatory clarity, promote consistent manufacturing practices, and create greater uniformity between the specifications for DOT-4 series cylinders and the requirements for welded cylinders found in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 4706-1,
Gas cylinders—Refillable welded steel cylinders—Part 1: Test pressure 60 bar and below,
which is referenced in the UN Model Regulations.

Summary of the changes proposed by P-1501 and the comments received are detailed below:

(1) Revise the requirements for DOT-specification 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders in §§ 178.50(b), 178.51(b), 178.61(b), and 178.68(b), respectively, to ensure material compositions and the heat treatment are within the specified tolerances and are of uniform quality as follows: (1) Require a record of intentionally-added alloying elements, and (2) require materials manufactured outside of the United States to have a ladle analysis confirmed by a check analysis.

Norris Cylinder sought clarification on the requirement to report intentionally added alloying elements. Specifically, Norris Cylinder inquired if PHMSA would require the manufacturer to maintain documents other than the mill certificate and the DOT Test Report.

PHMSA has decided that the proposed revisions to §§ 178.50(b), 178.51(b), 178.61(b), and 178.68(b) with respect to proposed measure (2) above is not necessary based on the required duties of inspectors in § 178.35(c)(2) to verify the material of construction meets the requirements of the applicable specification by (1) making a chemical analysis of each heat of material; (2) obtaining a certified chemical analysis from the material manufacturer for each heat of material (a ladle analysis is acceptable); or (3) if an analysis is not provided for each heat of material by the material manufacturer, by making a check analysis of a sample from each coil, sheet, or tube. However, we do believe a record of intentionally added alloying elements will be useful for ensuring material compositions are within the specified tolerances. As pointed out by Norris cylinder, the regulatory text proposed by CGA does not specify who must maintain the document. In this NPRM, we specify that the cylinder manufacturer must maintain the record of intentionally added alloying elements. Further, we are not proposing to require a check analysis to confirm the ladle analysis for materials manufactured outside of the United States because we believe this is already addressed by requiring domestic performance of required check analyses under § 178.35(b) of the HMR. We invite comment on this course of action.

(2) Revise the pressure tests for DOT-specification 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders in §§ 178.50(i), 178.51(i), 178.61(i), and 178.68(h), respectively, to permit use of the volumetric expansion test, a hydrostatic proof pressure test or a pneumatic proof pressure test.

Hydro-Test Products and Manchester Tank expressed concern that PHMSA would allow a pneumatic pressure test. Because the potential release of energy in the event of a cylinder rupture during a pneumatic test is much greater than that released if a cylinder ruptured during a hydrostatic test, the commenters state that the person conducting the test must take additional precautions to safeguard against injury, such as erecting a safety barrier to protect personnel. Worthington Cylinders noted that it had extensive experience conducting proof pressure tests with gas but further stated that each company's safety considerations of the testing equipment will be different.

Given the added risk associated with pneumatic testing and the fact that there are suitable alternatives to determine the leakproofness of a cylinder at the time of manufacture, PHMSA is not proposing to permit the use of pneumatic proof pressure testing in this NPRM.

(3) Revise the physical and flattening tests and retest criteria for DOT-specification 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders in §§ 178.50, 178.51, 178.61, and 178.68, respectively, for consistency. These revisions would clarify the location on the cylinder from which the test specimens are removed.

Manchester Tank requested that the specific proposed wording, or more detailed information, be made available for comment. Readers may review the specific changes to these sections at the end of this document.

(4) Revise §§ 178.50(n), 178.51(n), and 178.61(o), and 178.68, respectively, for DOT-specification 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders to permit marking on the footring for cylinders with water capacities up to 30 pounds, instead of 25 pounds.

Manchester Tank and Worthington Cylinders support the CGA proposal that would allow markings to be applied to the footring on cylinders up to 30-pounds water capacity, instead of the current capacity limit of 25 pounds. The commenters state that this revision would not impose any cost and would expand upon existing options. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing this revision as stated in the petition.

(5)
Add requirements for the location of markings on DOT 4E cylinders in § 178.68.

Manchester Tank and Worthington Cylinders support the proposed modification to permit marking of the valve protection collar of DOT 4E cylinders. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing the revision as stated in the petition.

P-1515

The Certified Training Company (CTC) submitted P-1515 requesting that PHMSA make numerous revisions to the requirements for the requalification of DOT-specification cylinders found in 49 CFR part 180, subpart C. These requirements include definitions for terms used in the subpart, references to CGA publications for the visual inspection of cylinders, and requirements for hydrostatically testing cylinders including methods to ensure the accuracy of test equipment. The CTC states that the current requirements create confusion for requalifiers and enforcement officials. In the ANPRM, PHMSA requested comments on two possible methods of responding to this petition. The first, as was suggested by CTC in P-1515, was to modify the specific HMR provisions in §§ 180.203 through 180.215 for requalification of cylinders. The second was to IBR into § 180.205 CGA C-1,
Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders,
Tenth Edition (2009), which contains most of the provisions and additions specified in P-1515, including revisions to definitions in § 180.203, appropriate procedures for conducting the hydraulic pressure tests, and marking and recordkeeping requirements.

PHMSA identified 980 entities that conduct hydrostatic retesting. Incorporation of CGA C-1 would impose a one-time cost of between $102 and $186 per document depending on the document format (electronic or hard copy) and the purchaser's CGA membership.

We received eight comments on this petition. Air Products and Chemicals, CGA, Bancroft Hinchley, and Worthington Cylinders support adoption of the CGA C-1 standard. Conversely, Hydro-Test Products stated that the proposals in P-1515 and the CGA C-1 impose stricter requirements on accuracy, pressure drop, and verification, therefore imposing an unnecessary burden on the industry. SodaStream requested PHMSA modify the appropriate sections of 49 CFR part 180, subpart C, instead, as adoption of CGA C-1 would limit their ability to conduct volumetric expansion tests and would result in a need to obtain a special permit.

As indicated by Worthington Cylinders, several commenters stated similar concerns to those shared regarding the option to IBR CGA C-1, with Worthington Cylinders further stating that CGA C-1 “represents the best testing practices for the industry.” Moreover, as indicated by CGA, the

changes proposed in P-1515 would not resolve the confusion of requalifiers and enforcement officials that the petition seeks to address. For these reasons, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to IBR CGA C-1,
Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders,
at § 171.7 and into § 180.205 and numerous other sections (see discussion of Petition P-1626). However, subsequent to the submission of this petition, an eleventh edition of CGA C-1 has been made available. Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to update the IBR of CGA C-1 to the 2016 Eleventh Edition. We invite comment on this course of action.

The CTC further requests that PHMSA correct and reissue two letters of interpretation (Reference Nos. 00-0309 and 05-0087), as well as provide formal interpretation on six additional issues identified in its petition. PHMSA invites public comment on the questions, recommendations, and proposed responses detailed below:

(1) Existing Clarification Letter Reference No. 00-0309

On March 15, 2001, PHMSA responded to an inquiry from Vallen Technical Services (VTS) pertaining to the pressure retest of DOT-specification cylinders (Reference No. 00-0309). Citing that former § 173.34(e)(4)(v)—currently § 180.205(g)(5)—states, “In the case of a malfunction of the test equipment, the test may be repeated at a pressure increased by 10 percent or 100 [pounds per square inch] psi, whichever is less,” VTS stated its understanding that only one repeat test is permitted. PHMSA responded with the following: “Your understanding of this requirement is correct. Section 173.34(e)(4)(v) permits only one repeat test in the case of a malfunction of the test equipment. With regards to your reference to the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) pamphlet C-1, currently the HMR do not incorporate the pamphlet by reference. However, we proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking to reference certain pressure test procedures contained in the CGA pamphlet. (Docket No. HM-98-3684 (HM-220); October 30, 1998).”

The CTC states that § 180.205(g)(5) “permits only one repeated test” and further posits that this letter's response directly contradicts language PHMSA previously issued in a final rule [Docket No. HM-220A (61 FR 26750); February 28, 1996)] that states: “A commenter specifically asks how many repeated tests are allowed before condemning the cylinder, and the response is that the cylinder is to be condemned when it exceeds its permanent expansion limit. It even specifies, `. . . Thus when this limit [Perm. Expan.] is exceeded . . .' [
i.e.,
no limit to the number of repeats is given, even when the specific question was asked.]”

Although the CTC states it favors limiting the number of repeat tests of this type, it believes PHMSA's statement on this matter in Reference No. 00-0309 “constitutes a rulechange, not an interpretation.” The CTC believes requiring only one repeat test “may be overly restrictive in some cases, such as small aircraft cylinders, and certain composite cylinders,” and suggests allowing two repeated tests, as permitted in special permits DOT-SPs 10915, 10945, and 11194, would be “more in line with current industry procedure.”

On August 8, 2002, PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration, issued a final rule under Docket No. HM-220D that consolidated the requirements for qualification, use, and maintenance of cylinders in 49 CFR part 180, subpart C. As a result, the regulatory sections referred to in Reference No. 00-0309 are no longer correct. Further, not all the requirements previously codified in § 173.34 have parallel requirements in 49 CFR [art 180, subpart C. See § 180.205(g)(5) for additional information. However, PHMSA agrees with the CTC that the language in Reference No. 00-0309 may be misleading and believes the IBR of CGA C-1 into § 180.205 will resolve any issue the CTC may have with this letter of interpretation. We invite comment on this conclusion. PHMSA also plans to retract Reference No. 00-0309.

(2) Existing Clarification Letter Reference No. 05-0087

On May 10, 2005, PHMSA responded to an inquiry from G&C Kinney, Inc., concerning calibration verification of equipment used for volumetric expansion tests for DOT-specification cylinders (Reference No. 05-0087). The company asked whether the maximum pressure at which the verification test is being conducted (for example, 3,000 pounds) must be maintained at the final pressure for 30 seconds or whether the pressure may be allowed to drop between 2 psi and 10 psi. PHMSA responded by stating, “Overall, for any pressure test (calibration or production retest), the 30-second hold time begins only when the cylinder has completed its expansion. If the cylinder pressure drops by any measurable amount (such as 2 psi) during the recorded 30-second hold time, the hold time must be restarted, or the test would be considered invalid.”

The CTC requests that PHMSA retract its Reference No. 05-0087 response because it contradicts regulatory text found in § 180.205(g)(2), (g)(3)(i), and (g)(5); DOT-SPs 10915 and 10945; standards in CGA C-1, Seventh Edition (1996); and some manuals of manufacturers of hydrostatic test equipment. Specifically, the CTC states the following:

Paragraph 180.205(g)(5) states, “Minimum test pressure must be maintained for at least 30 seconds,
and as long as necessary for complete expansion of the cylinder.
” [Emphasis added.] This statement tells us that the cylinder may be expanding during the 30 second hold time, and if the cylinder is still expanding at the end of the 30 seconds, we must hold even longer than the minimum 30 seconds. As the cylinder expands, its volume increases, and pressure will drop. Therefore, the statement “as long as necessary for complete expansion of the cylinder” is equivalent to saying “until the pressure ceases to drop”. The regulations state that this may occur during the 30 second hold time; the regulations do not specify the hold time begins after the cylinder has completed its expansion. Therefore, this “interpretation” directly contradicts § 180.205(g)(5), and constitutes a rule change.

Paragraph 180.205(g)(2) states, “[t]he pressure indicating device of the testing apparatus must permit reading of pressures to within 1% of the minimum prescribed test pressure of each cylinder tested.” Paragraph 180.205(g)(3)(i) states, “[t]he pressure-indicating device, as part of the retest apparatus, is accurate within ±1.0% of the prescribed test pressure of any cylinder tested that day.” This interpretation attempts to declare a test invalid due to a 2 psi drop in pressure at 3000 psi. The pressure indicating device has already been defined as having a 1% resolution and ±1% accuracy. According to the definition of the device, it can deviate by ±30 psi at 3000 psi (30 psi = 1% of 3000 psi). This interpretation violates the definition of the device as stated in these two paragraphs.

Furthermore, many special permits, such as DOT-SP 10915 and 10945, recognize that different materials (such as the carbon-fiber wrapped, aluminum lined cylinders referenced in these special permits) take even longer than 30 seconds to completely deform under the load of test pressure, and therefore require a hold time of 60 seconds. According to this interpretation, these special permits would require a hold time of 60 seconds (or longer), until the cylinder completed its expansion, and then an additional 60 seconds of hold time, wherein the pressure could not drop by even 2 psi. This, obviously, is not the intention of these special permits when they state, “. . . for a minimum test time of one minute.”

Industry standard CGA C-1, Seventh Edition 1996, “Methods for Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders,” in paragraph 4.4(g) states, “[w]hen the desired

value is reached, stop the pressurization and hold for 30 seconds.” And, “[t]he expansion and pressure should remain stable during the entire 30 seconds. If either the pressure or expansion do not stabilize within ±1%, see 4.5 [Troubleshooting].” Thus, the 30-second hold begins when the pump stops, and deviation during the hold time is allowed up to the defined accuracy of the device, that is, ±1% of the test pressure, and ±1% of the total expansion.

Manufacturers of hydrostatic test equipment specify in their manuals and the software controlling automated equipment that the 30-second hold time begins when the test pressure is reached and the pump is turned off.

The CTC further states: “This interpretation declares virtually every test performed on cylinders in the past century to be invalid, since every cylinder tested (as well as the hoses on the machine) will continue to expand after the pump is stopped. Therefore the pressure will drop. The only issue is whether or not the device is capable of detecting such a minute drop in pressure.” The CTC believes this interpretation is based on two misunderstandings:

1.
Closed loop hydraulics vs. open system.
In a closed loop hydraulic system (such as the controls on an aircraft), any drop in pressure is unacceptable. This does not apply to an open system where the pressure will drop (
e.g.,
a cylinder expanding during a test).

2.
Higher precision digital devices vs. analog devices.
There has always been a slight drop in pressure during the hold time. On an analog device, it was not visible. It is now visible on a digital device, but that does not simply invalidate the test.

PHMSA agrees with the CTC that the language in Reference No. 05-0087 is misleading and believes the IBR of CGA C-1 into § 180.205, in conjunction with additional changes to the regulations proposed consistent with petition P-1626, will resolve any issue the CTC may have with this letter of interpretation. We invite comment on this conclusion. PHMSA also plans to retract Reference No. 05-0087.

P-1521

The CGA submitted P-1521 requesting that PHMSA modify the provision in § 172.400a(a)(1)(i) to remove the limitation that only allows the use of the neckring markings if a cylinder is not overpacked. The petition would still require the overpack to display the labels in conformance with 49 CFR part 172, subpart E.

The HMR permit the use of a neckring marking, under certain conditions, in conformance with the CGA C-7,
Guide to Preparation of Precautionary Labeling and Marking of Compressed Gas Containers, Appendix A,
Eighth Edition (2004) under § 172.400a. This neckring marking identifies the contents of a cylinder by displaying the proper shipping name, the UN identification number, and the hazard class or division label within a single marking. Section 172.400a(a)(1) permits the use of this marking in lieu of required labels on a Dewar flask meeting the requirements in § 173.320 or a cylinder containing Division 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 material that is not overpacked. This requirement should provide flexibility in hazard communication for cylinders, especially small cylinders.

The marking prescribed in appendix A to CGA C-7 provides useful information in a clear and consistent manner, and its widespread use on cylinders has enhanced its recognition. CGA's proposed change would provide greater flexibility for shipments of overpacked cylinders while ensuring adequate hazard communication. If cylinders are contained in an overpack, the overpack must display the appropriate markings and labels.

PHMSA identified approximately 86 entities engaged in Industrial Gas Manufacturing, of which 74 are classed as small entities (<500 employees). Other potentially impacted entities include wholesalers of medical equipment, service establishment equipment and supplies, and other miscellaneous durable goods. In the ANPRM, PHMSA asked for comments on the potential implications of this change, specifically regarding its necessity and the potential safety and economic impacts. PHMSA also sought data concerning the breadth of shipments to be impacted by the proposal. PHMSA received no responses to these questions from commenters to the ANPRM.

Both Air Products and Chemicals and Worthington Cylinders support CGA's petition to revise § 172.400a(a)(1)(i). Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise § 172.400a(a)(1)(i) to remove the limitation that would only allow the use of the neckring markings if the cylinders are not overpacked, as proposed in P-1521. The petition would still require the overpack to display the required labels in conformance with 49 CFR part 172, subpart E.

P-1538

On behalf of Jetboil, Inc., The Wicks Group submitted P-1538 requesting that PHMSA revise § 173.306(a)(1) to permit camping stove cylinders containing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in amounts less than 4 ounces but in a container exceeding 4 fluid ounce capacity to be shipped as consumer commodity (ORM-D). Section 173.306 prescribes requirements for transporting compressed gases as a limited quantity and a consumer commodity. Paragraph (a)(1) of § 173.306 requires a container of only compressed gas to be limited to a capacity of 4 fluid ounces or less except cigarette lighters, which are required to meet rigorous performance design standards and packaging requirements prescribed in § 173.308. The Wicks Group states if more than 4 fluid ounces of the liquefied portion of the gas were enclosed in the cylinder, “there would be insufficient space remaining for the gaseous portion of the liquefied gas, as required by [§§ 173.304(b) and 173.304a(d)(1)]. In other words, [§§ 173.304(b) and 173.304a(d)(1)] together limit the
percentage of space
[emphasis added] that the liquefied portion of a liquefied gas may take up in a cylinder. Thus, since the canisters at issue here could not safely or legally hold more than four (4) fluid ounces of LPG while complying with the HMR filling limits and filling density requirements, they can reasonably be said to have a capacity of four (4) fluid ounces.” The petitioner included a certificate from the manufacturer of the “Jetpower” 100G canister of cooking fuel, Taeyang Ind., Co., LTD, of Seoul, Korea, certifying “that the capacity of the 100G canister is less than 4 oz. because the capacity of the canister should be measured by the amount of liquefied gas contents in a fluid condition that it can hold, still leaving room for the portion in a gas condition. The 100G canisters must have less than 4 oz. of liquefied gas to meet that requirement. The capacity of the 100G canisters `Jetpower' should be considered less than 4 ounces. These canisters are safe for transportation as ORM-D.
1

We are unaware of any problems occurring with these canisters in transportation.” PHMSA seeks public comment on the safety issues associated with this proposal, especially those regarding the safe performance of containers of this type in transportation.

1
Note that the ORM-D class will be completely phased out for all modes of transportation by December 31, 2020.

The Wicks Group further states on behalf of Jetboil, Inc., that “. . . 49 CFR 173.306(a)(1) is ambiguous as currently drafted. In brief, the HMR do not define the term capacity, but do define the term `maximum capacity,' at 49 CFR 171.8, as meaning `the maximum inner volume of receptacles or packagings.' If PHMSA interprets `capacity' as meaning the total volume of the container, then

the word `maximum' would be rendered meaningless. This violates the long-established rule of statutory and regulatory interpretation that courts must give effect to every clause and word of a legal text whenever possible. Indeed, the omission of a word in one section of a text can be telling where that word issued in another section of the same act or regulation.” In addition, the petitioner states providing industry an opportunity to comment on this issue in a rulemaking will give them the chance “to explain why these containers present a reduced safety risk, and to demonstrate that there have been no transportation safety incidents involving these containers.”

PHMSA has limited the amount of compressed gas in limited quantity packagings to reduce the opportunity and speed of the gaseous product's reaction to an activating event, having found that including non-gaseous materials in the same container with the gas—such as foodstuffs, soap, etc.—slowed this reaction. The petitioner requested that PHMSA define the word “capacity” in the HMR to add meaning to the maximum capacity definition in § 171.8. The Interstate Commerce Commission first adopted the provision for § 173.306(a)(1) (previously § 73.306(a)(1)) in a final rule published July 1, 1966 (31 FR 9067). The provision provided an “exemption” (
i.e.,
an exception) from regulations for shipping of compressed gases “when in containers of not more than 4 fluid ounce water capacity.” Thus, historically, the provision applies to the capacity of the container and not to the quantity of its contents. This is consistent with design requirements for the capacity of packagings found in part 178 that includes a specification for the water capacity of the packaging (
e.g.,
Specification 3A and 3AX seamless steel cylinders in § 178.36); however, the publication of a final rule on April 15, 1976 (41 FR 15972) inadvertently dropped the term “water” from paragraph (a)(1) regardless of there having been no express discussion of the intent to do so or to change the size standard from the originally adopted water capacity to the quantity of the contents.

Furthermore, the definition “maximum capacity” was introduced as part of a harmonization effort with international regulations and standards in a final rule published December 21, 1990 (55 FR 52402) for consistency with use of terminology internationally for UN performance oriented packaging. See the part 178, subpart L non-bulk performance oriented packaging sections. Therefore, based on the historical context of capacity as its use in § 173.306(a)(1) to mean water capacity and the adoption of the term “maximum capacity” in association with the adoption of UN performance-oriented packaging, we are not proposing to amend § 173.306(a)(1) to accommodate this petition for rulemaking.

P-1539

Matheson-TriGas submitted P-1539 requesting that PHMSA revise § 180.209, which prescribes requirements for requalifying cylinders. Paragraph (a) of § 180.209 requires each DOT-specification cylinder listed in “table 1 of this paragraph” to be requalified and marked in conformance with requirements specified in § 180.209. The petitioner requests that PHMSA extend the 10-year retest period prescribed in this table for DOT 3A, 3AA, and 3AL specification cylinders in Division 2.2 (non-flammable) gas service to once every 15 years. Matheson-TriGas also requests in its petition that PHMSA extend the 5-year retest period prescribed in this table for DOT 3A, 3AA, and 3AL specification cylinders in Division 2.1 (flammable) gas service to once every 10 years. The petitioner states: “Historically over 99.4% of cylinders in the above[-mentioned] services that were [subjected] to the water jacket test pass the test,” and “it is more likely . . . the cylinder failed the external or internal visual [test] rather than failing the water jacket test.”

Matheson-TriGas notes PHMSA's statement from an earlier rulemaking regarding the history of the plus rating for steel cylinders resulting from the steel shortage of World War II, which resulted in changes “that benefitted the industry with no compromise of public safety down to this day.” Matheson-TriGas extrapolates that we face similar metal shortage challenges in today's economy.

Upon further consideration of this petition based on our concern of increasing the risk of cylinder failure by lengthening the timeframe between periodic qualifications, PHMSA is electing not to propose to revise the 10-year requalification period for DOT 3A, 3AA, and 3AL specification cylinders in Division 2.2 (non-flammable) gas service to once every 15 years, nor to revise the 5-year requalification period for DOT 3A, 3AA, and 3AL specification cylinders in Division 2.1 (flammable) gas service to once every 10 years. We invite comment on this decision and request detailed information in support or opposition to this decision.

P-1540

The CGA submitted P-1540 requesting that PHMSA require newly manufactured DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders to be marked with the mass weight, tare weight, and water capacity. As specified in § 178.35(f), the HMR require DOT-specification cylinders to be permanently marked with specific information including the DOT-specification, the service pressure, a serial number, an inspector's mark, and the date manufacturing tests were completed. These marks provide vital information to fillers and uniquely identify the cylinder.

Certain DOT 4-series specification cylinders contain liquefied gases filled by weight, so the tare weight (
i.e.,
the weight of the empty cylinder and appurtenances) or the mass weight (
i.e.,
the weight of the empty cylinder), and the water capacity must be known by the filler to properly fill the cylinder. This information is essential for cylinders filled by weight, as cylinders overfilled with a liquefied gas can become liquid full as the ambient temperature increases. If temperatures continue to rise, pressure in the overfilled cylinder will rise disproportionately, potentially leading to leakage or a violent rupture of the cylinder after only a small rise in temperature. Despite these risks, the HMR do not require tare weight, mass weight, or water capacity markings on DOT-specification cylinders.

To address this, the CGA petitioned PHMSA to require tare weight or mass weight, and water capacity to be marked on newly constructed DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E specification cylinders. The petition also requests that PHMSA provide guidance on the accuracy of these markings and define the party responsible for applying them. In its petition, CGA notes that PHMSA IBRs the National Fire Protection Association's
58-Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code
(NFPA 58), which requires cylinders used for liquefied petroleum gases to be marked with the tare weight and water capacity;
2

however, as stated in the petition, NFPA 58 gives no guidance as to the accuracy of these markings or the party required to provide them. The CGA states that this lack of guidance can lead to the overfilling of a cylinder and the potential for unsafe conditions.

2
Note that IBR of NFPA 58 is not for marking purposes but for purposes of equipping storage tanks containing LPG or propane with safety devices. See § 173.315(j).

While DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders are often used to transport liquefied compressed gas, we noted in

the ANPRM that these are not the only cylinder types used for liquefied compressed gas transport. For that reason, in the ANPRM, PHMSA asked for comment regarding the potential revision of § 178.35 to require all DOT-specification cylinders suitable for the transport of liquefied gases to be marked with the cylinder's tare weight or water capacity. PHMSA understands that many in the compressed gas industry, especially the liquefied petroleum gas industry, already request manufacturers mark cylinders with this additional information as an added safety measure. Based on this assumption, PHMSA estimates the impact on the liquefied compressed gas industry will be minimal as many in the industry are already voluntarily applying these markings. In the ANPRM, we requested comment on this assertion.

PHMSA identified six U.S. based manufacturers of the cylinders identified in the petition, of which five are classified as small businesses using SBA size standards (< 500 employees). PHMSA requested comments and supporting data regarding the increased safety benefits and the economic impact of this proposal. With regards to the cost associated with this modification, in the ANPRM, PHMSA asked the following specific questions:

• What is the average total cost per cylinder to complete these markings (
i.e.,
is an estimated cost of $0.10 per character for new markings accurate)?

• What is the estimated quantity of newly manufactured 4B, 4BA, 4BW and 4E cylinders each year? Furthermore, how many of these cylinders already display tare weight and water capacity markings in compliance with NFPA 58 or other codes?

• How many manufacturers of the cylinders mentioned above are considered small businesses by the SBA?

PHMSA sought to identify: (1) The frequency of which the mass weight or tare weight, and water capacity markings are already permissively applied to cylinders, (2) the costs associated with applying these marks, (3) the safety benefits associated with the additional markings, and (4) the alternate methods or safeguards against overfilling of cylinders currently being implemented.

Air Products and Chemicals supports the petition with no additional comments. The CGA supports the inclusions of tare weight, mass weight, and water capacity requirements on newly constructed DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E specification cylinders at the time of manufacture but does not support—and strongly disagrees with—PHMSA's consideration of modifying § 178.35 to require all DOT-specification cylinders suitable for the transport of liquefied gases to be marked with the cylinder's tare weight and water capacity. The CGA also believes that the 49 CFR must further clarify that no cylinder must be filled with a liquefied gas unless a mass or tare weight is marked on the cylinder, providing the following justification:

• At the time of manufacture, the manufacturer would not know whether the DOT 3 series cylinders are or are not be used in a liquefied gas service;

• Marking all cylinders, as suggested by DOT, would include every cylinder manufactured in conformance with the specifications set forth in the HMR, which would therefore require cylinders that have been designed and manufactured for a specific permanent gas application be marked for tare weight and water capacity just because the cylinder could be used (at some time) for liquefiable gas;

• There would be instances on small 3-series cylinders where the additional marking would not fit onto the dome of the cylinder; and

• The economic impact estimated for marking all cylinders is significantly greater than the estimates submitted by PHMSA.

Manchester Tank expresses concern that numerous variations in stamped weights could cause confusion in the field among fillers. They state that adding mass weight stamping to a cylinder that already has tare weight stamped could lead to incorrect filling if the wrong figure is used. They ask PHMSA for specific clarification of the language to assign the duty to mark tare weight to the valve installer and indicate that there are many cylinders that are not valved by the manufacturer, further declared that those cylinders can be marked correctly with mass weight—but not with tare weight, since the weight of the appurtenance may not be known to the manufacturer of the vessel. In addition, Manchester Tank notes that available space for stamping is limited on some vessels and increased stamping will not allow significant space for retest marking information.

In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise § 178.35(f) to require that tare weight or mass weight, and water capacity be marked on certain DOT 4-series specification cylinders used for the transport of liquefied gases as petitioned by the CGA. We stress that while cylinder markings are important to ensure the safe filling of liquefied compressed gas, they do not take the place of adequate personnel training, procedures to ensure proper filling, and continued requalification and maintenance of cylinders in preventing incidents. PHMSA seeks additional comment on expanding this marking requirement to other DOT-specification cylinders and the costs and benefits as well as the safety implications of doing so.

P-1546

GSI Training Services submitted P-1546 requesting that PHMSA allow cylinders that form a component of fire suppression systems to use the proper shipping name “Fire extinguishers” when offered for transportation. The Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) in § 172.101 provides a shipping description for cylinders used as fire extinguishers (
i.e.,
“UN1044, Fire extinguishers, 2.2”) and references § 173.309 for exceptions and non-bulk packaging requirements. Fire extinguishers charged with a limited quantity of compressed gas are excepted from labeling, placarding, and shipping paper requirements under certain conditions if the cylinder is packaged and offered for transportation in conformance with § 173.309.
3

Additionally, fire extinguishers filled in conformance with the requirements of § 173.309 may use non-specification cylinders (
i.e.,
cylinders not manufactured to specifications in part 178). Part 180 also provides special requirements for cylinders used as fire extinguishers (
e.g.,
§ 180.209(j) includes different requalification intervals).

3
Note that the format of § 173.309 was changed under a final rule published January 7, 2013 (HM-215K; 78 FR 1101) such that the exceptions for limited quantities has been relocated to paragraph (d) of § 173.309.

PHMSA has written several letters of clarification regarding the applicability of § 173.309 to fire extinguishers. Notably on March 9, 2005, PHMSA wrote a letter (Reference No. 04-0202) to Safecraft Safety Equipment regarding non-specification stainless steel cylinders used as a component in a fire suppression system for installation in vehicles and stated that the cylinders used in the fire suppression system appeared to meet the requirements of § 173.309. PHMSA issued another letter (Reference No. 06-0101) on May 30, 2008, to Buckeye Fire Equipment stating that the company could not use the shipping name “Fire extinguishers” for their cylinders, which served as a component of a kitchen fire suppression system, and must use the proper shipping name that best describes the material contained in the cylinder since these cylinders were not equipped to function as fire extinguishers. This latter clarification effectively required

cylinders that are part of a fixed fire suppression system to meet an appropriate DOT-specification.

In response to Reference No. 06-0101, GSI Training Services submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting PHMSA to allow cylinders that form a component of fire suppression systems to use the proper shipping name “Fire extinguishers” when offered for transportation, stating that: (1) At least one company manufactured over 39,000 non-specification cylinders for use in fire suppression systems based on the information provided in the March 9, 2005 letter; and (2) the May 30, 2008 clarification effectively placed this company out of compliance. GSI Training Services further suggests that cylinders comprising a component of a fixed fire suppression system will provide an equal or greater level of safety than portable fire extinguishers since cylinders in fire suppression systems are typically installed in buildings where they are protected from damage and not handled on a regular basis.

In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise the § 173.309 introductory text to include cylinders used as part of a fire suppression system as a cylinder type authorized for transport in accordance with the HMT entry for fire extinguishers. The controls detailed in § 173.309 provide an acceptable level of safety regardless of whether the cylinder is equipped for use as a handheld fire extinguisher or as a component of a fixed fire suppression system.

P-1563

3M Corporation submitted P-1563 requesting that PHMSA address the regulatory confusion between marking requirements for overpacks in § 173.25 and outside packages for certain thin-walled cylinders specified in § 173.301(a)(9). The petitioner notes that the differing marking requirements in §§ 173.25 and 173.301(a)(9) create confusion and make training difficult. This petition requests modification of the HMR to permit materials packaged in conformance with § 173.301(a)(9)—except aerosols “2P” and “2Q”—to display the “OVERPACK” marking described in § 173.25, in lieu of the current requirement for “an indication that the inner packaging conforms to prescribed specifications.”

In accordance with § 173.301(a)(9), DOT-specification 2P, 2Q, 3E, 3HT, spherical 4BA, 4D, 4DA, 4DS, and 39 cylinders must be packed in strong non-bulk outer packagings. This configuration meets the definition of a combination package as indicated in paragraph (a)(9) and further, as defined in § 171.8 of the HMR. Paragraph (a)(9) requires the outside of this combination packaging to be marked with an indication that the inner packagings conform to the prescribed specifications. The completed combination package is subject to marking and labeling, as appropriate; however, the inner packagings do not have to be marked or labeled. These combination packages cannot also then be considered “overpacks.” For each completed package bearing required marking(s) and label(s) that is placed in an overpack, for consolidation or ease of handling, the overpack must also display the appropriate marking(s) and label(s) unless visible through the overpack [see § 173.25(a)(2)]. The “OVERPACK” mark must be applied when specification packagings are required by the HMR to communicate that the overpack contains specification packagings in conformance with the HMR.

The marking “inside (inner) packages comply with the prescribed specifications” for overpacks in § 173.25 was changed in 2004 to “OVERPACK” in an effort to better align with global overpack requirements. The 3M Corporation accurately states that prior to 2004 both the overpack requirements in § 173.25 and the requirement in § 173.301(a)(9) to package certain DOT-specification cylinders in strong, non-bulk outer packagings used very similar language intended to inform package handlers that although not visible, the inner packages contained specification packagings that conformed to appropriate DOT or UN standards.

PHMSA recognizes that differing marking requirements in §§ 173.25 and 173.301(a)(9) to communicate the same intended meaning may be causing confusion without enhancing safety. In order to address the petition and provide for greater clarity, PHMSA is proposing to revise § 173.301(a)(9) to authorize use of the “OVERPACK” marking as specified in § 173.25(a)(3) as a method to satisfy the current requirement in paragraph (a)(1) to mark the completed package with an indication that the inner packagings conform to prescribed specifications for the listed cylinders. We agree with 3M that the issue is more complex for 2P and 2Q containers as specified in §§ 173.304, 173.305, and 173.306 and, therefore, are not including 2P and 2Q in the allowance for the “OVERPACK” marking. The revision will also include instructional language that the combination package is not to be considered an “overpack.” PHMSA welcomes comments from affected entities regarding the following: potential consequences, safety and economic impacts, current level of difficulty and unnecessary confusion, need for change, quantity of shipments per year to be impacted, etc.

P-1572

Barlen and Associates submitted P-1572 requesting that PHMSA explicitly state in § 173.312 that for liquefied compressed gases in Multiple-Element Gas Containers (MEGCs), the filling density of each pressure receptacle must not exceed the values contained in Packing Instruction P200 of the UN Model Regulations, as specified in § 173.304b, and the contents of each DOT-specification cylinder cannot exceed the densities specified in § 173.304a(a)(2).
4

4
Note that the petition specifically referenced the 17th ed. of the UN Model Regulations, however, we will propose a change that references the edition currently incorporated by reference in § 171.7 because we biennially update the edition for harmonization with international standards.

Requirements for shipping MEGCs are specified in § 173.312. Specifically, § 173.312(b) details the filling requirements for MEGCs and states,” [a] MEGC may not be filled to a pressure greater than the lowest marked working pressure of any pressure receptacle[and a] MEGC may not be filled above its marked maximum permissible gross mass.” The requirement that each pressure receptacle contained in the MEGC may not be filled above the working pressure of the lowest marked working pressure of any pressure receptacle is clear for permanent (non-liquefied compressed) gases, which are generally filled by pressure; however, § 173.312(b) does not contain a corresponding requirement addressing pressure receptacles containing a liquefied compressed gas, which are most often filled by weight. This lack of specificity for MEGCs containing liquefied compressed gas has led to some confusion on methods for their proper filling. Therefore, in this NPRM, we propose to specify the filling ratio requirements for pressure receptacles.

PHMSA does not anticipate this provision will impose any new burden, as this proposal would only emphasize an important safety requirement already stated in § 173.304a for DOT-specification cylinders and § 173.304b for UN pressure receptacles. PHMSA invites comments from affected entities regarding the following: Safety and economic impacts, level of difficulty and unnecessary confusion, need for change, etc.

P-1580

HMT Associates submitted P-1580 requesting that PHMSA revise §§ 173.302(f)(2) and 173.304(f)(2) to require that the burst pressure of a rupture disc coincide with CGA S-1.1 for DOT 39 cylinders offered for transportation after October 1, 2008; other DOT-specification cylinders with the first requalification due after October 1, 2008; and UN pressure receptacles prior to initial use. Specifically, as prescribed in 4.2.2 of CGA S-1.1, the required burst pressure of the rupture disc “shall not exceed 80% of the minimum cylinder burst pressure and shall not be less than 105% of the cylinder test pressure.”

Section 173.301(f) states that a cylinder filled with a compressed gas and offered for transportation “must be equipped with one or more [pressure relief devices (PRDs)] sized and selected as to type, location and quantity and tested in conformance with CGA S-1.1 [
Pressure Relief Device Standards—Part 1—Cylinders for Compressed Gases,
Fourteenth Edition (2005)] and CGA S-7 [
Method for Selecting Pressure Relief Devices for Compressed Gas Mixtures in Cylinders
(2005)].” Sections 172.302(f)(2) and 172.304(f)(2) specify that the rated burst pressure of a rupture disc for DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AL, 3E, and 39 cylinders, as well as that for UN ISO 9809-1, ISO 9809-2, ISO 9809-3, and ISO 7866 cylinders containing oxygen, compressed; compressed gas, oxidizing, n.o.s.; or nitrogen trifluoride, must be 100 percent of the cylinder minimum test pressure with a tolerance of `plus zero' to minus 10 percent.

In response to PHMSA's NPRM entitled “Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous Amendments” published on September 29, 2010 [75 FR 60017] under Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0151 (HM-218F), HMT Associates submitted a late-filed comment that identified a potential discrepancy between the HMR and CGA S-1.1. Specifically, this commenter stated the HMR have different PRD settings than CGA S-1.1 for DOT 39 cylinders that make it virtually impossible to comply with both the HMR and CGA S-1.1. Sections 173.302(f)(2) and 173.304(f)(2) require the rated burst pressure of a rupture disc for DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AL, 3E, and DOT 39 cylinders to be 100 percent of the cylinder minimum test pressure with a tolerance of `plus zero' to minus 10 percent, whereas section 4.2.2 of CGA S-1.1 requires the rated burst pressure of the rupture disc on DOT 39 cylinders to be not less than 105 percent of the cylinder test pressure.

In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to revise § 173.301(f) as it applies to DOT 39 cylinders to alleviate any confusion and conflict between the PRD requirements in § 173.301(f) and those in §§ 173.302(f)(2) and 173.304(f)(2) with respect to minimum burst pressure of pressure relief devices on a DOT 39 cylinder used for the transport of compressed and liquified oxidizing gases by air. PHMSA notes that the revision made to § 173.301(f) was based on option 2 presented in HMT Associates comment to rulemaking HM-218F and submitted as petition P-1580. PHMSA requests comments from the compressed gas industry regarding this course of action.

P-1582

Water Systems Council submitted P-1582 requesting that PHMSA revise § 173.306(g), which provides a limited quantity exception for water pump system tanks, by permitting tanks manufactured to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Water Systems Council (WSC) standard PST-2000-2005(2009) to be authorized for transport.

ANSI and WSC standard PST-2000-2005 is an industry standard that prescribes minimum performance and construction requirements for pressurized storage tanks for service in water well systems with a maximum factory pre-charge pressure of 40 psig (280 kPa), to be operated in ambient air temperatures up to 120 °F (49 °C), with maximum working pressures not less than 75 psig (520 kPa) and not greater than 150 psig (1,000 kPa) and tank volumes not exceeding 120 gallons (450 L). The standard was developed by a group of WSC members comprised of leading U.S. manufacturers of pressurized water storage tanks for water wells to define and promote—through voluntary written standards—minimum performance and construction requirements for pressurized water storage tanks for service in water well systems. Incorporating the standard into the HMR will provide minimum requirements for pressurized water storage tanks for water wells that provide at least an equivalent level of safety as currently provided in the HMR.

PHMSA identified 38 U.S. based manufacturers or distributors of water pump system tanks, most of which would be classified as a small business using SBA size standards (<500 employees). There are no costs associated with this proposal because it is already incorporated into the regulations. This proposal will authorize tanks to be tested to current standards in the HMR or the manufacturer's specified minimum working pressure. Further, it allows water pump system tanks to be charged with helium in addition to the currently authorized nitrogen. The revisions would provide greater flexibility to stakeholders without compromising safety. Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing these recommended changes.

P-1592

The CGA submitted P-1592 requesting that PHMSA replace the 2005 edition of CGA S-1.1,
Pressure Relief Device Standards-Part 1-Cylinders for Compressed Gases
with the 2011 edition as referenced in the HMR.

CGA S-1.1 provides standards for selecting the correct pressure relief device to meet the requirements of § 173.301(f) for over 150 gases. It provides guidance on when a pressure relief device can be optionally omitted and when one's use is prohibited, as well as direction on their manufacture, testing, operational parameters, and maintenance.

PHMSA identified approximately 5,000 companies that would be subject to this standard, with the majority being classified as small businesses using SBA size standards (<500 employees).

This minor update to the regulations improves the timeliness and clarity of industry standards that are IBR. It supports the goal of facilitating voluntary compliance and reducing the burdens associated with references to outdated material. Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing these recommended changes.

P-1596

Chemically Speaking, LLC submitted P-1596 requesting that PHMSA revise the HMR pertaining to salvage drums. Specifically, they propose amending § 173.3(d) to allow Class 4 and Class 5 materials to be placed in salvage cylinders.

For over 30 years the gas industry, public agencies, gas cylinder users, and gas disposal companies have used open head salvage cylinders fabricated to ASME specifications to quickly and safely contain and transport leaking cylinders to locations where they can be safely emptied or repaired. Salvage cylinders were originally permitted under special permits (exemptions) specific for each design,
5

but these exemptions were adopted into the HMR in 2005. Class 4 or 5 materials were not

included in the adoption; however, there is no preamble language in the rules specifically indicating reasons for the exclusion. A salvage cylinder made to ASME specifications as a pressure vessel and packaged as prescribed in § 173.3(d) is a more robust package than a salvage container, which is used for liquids or solids. The addition of a pyrophoric material will not add a new hazard in the use of salvage cylinders, as some of the compressed gases that are also authorized have pyrophoric properties, such as silane, 2.1 (UN2203) or phosphine, 2.3 (UN2199). Moreover, these gases also have the added hazards of high pressure (1,500 psig), with the latter also being a toxic material.

5
DOT-E 9507, 9781, 9991, 10022, 10110, 10151, 10323, 10372, 10504, 10519, 10789, 10987, 11257, 11459, 12698, 12790, and 12898.

Over a period of four years (2006-2010), the use of salvage pressure receptacles was debated at the UN Subcommittee on Transportation of Dangerous Goods. Numerous papers were submitted in support of this effort. In the December 2010 session, the use of salvage pressure receptacles was approved and published in “Amendments to the sixteenth revised edition of the Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations.” The amendments include the authorization of salvage cylinders for Class 4 and 5 materials.

This change will have a positive economic impact on owners of salvage cylinders as this will increase the instances where a salvage cylinder can be used. Many metal alkyl users and gas suppliers already own a salvage cylinder. There will be a negligible burden for procedures to be updated to include these cylinders. Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing these recommended changes; however, we do not propose additional reporting requirements.

P-1622

Worthington Cylinders submitted P-1622 requesting that PHMSA allow the internal volume of DOT 39 cylinders not to exceed 75 cubic inches, which will be reflected in revisions to the entries for cyclopropane, ethane, and ethylene in the § 173.304a(a)(2) table to include this limit in new footnote “Note 9.” This proposal would also clarify the 75 cubic inch limit for DOT 39 cylinders by adding it in a new sentence to § 173.304a(d)(3). Worthington Cylinders states its justifications for this petition are as follows:

As discussed in my May 2011 letter, 49 CFR went through a rewrite in 2001. At this point in time, Paragraph 173.304 titled
“Charging of cylinders with liquefied compressed gas”
was divided into two specific sections, 173.304 and 173.304a. Previous to the change in 2001, Note 9 was present in the Table of Paragraph 173.304. This note stated “When used for shipment of flammable gases, the internal volume of a Specification 39 cylinder must not exceed 75 cubic inches.” This would apply specifically to cylinders containing liquefied compressed gases. At the same time, Paragraph 173.302 titled “
Charging of cylinder with non-liquefied compressed gases”
stated in subsection 4 that for “Specification 39 cylinders for flammable gases, the internal volume may not exceed 75 cubic inches.” This paragraph would specifically pertain to cylinders charged with non-liquefied gases.

The problem lies with each edition of 49 CFR published since 2001. Paragraph 173.304a is not making any statement limiting the Specification 39 cylinder volume when charging the cylinder with liquefied flammable gases, yet paragraph 173.302a(3) limits the flammable compressed gas in a Specification 39 cylinder to a maximum of 75 cubic inches. Clearly, DOT would not want to authorize a liquefied flammable compressed gas for any volume Specification 39 cylinder when the specifications limit the volume to 75 cubic inches for a flammable compressed gas. I will use propane as an example: Propane can be shipped as a compressed gas or a liquefied compressed gas. If it is shipped as a compressed gas the specifications limit the shipper to a container 75 cubic inches or smaller (49 CFR 173.302). If the shipper was shipping propane as a liquefied compressed gas there are no limitations in the regulations on the Specification 39 cylinder volume (49 CFR 174.304a). This clearly makes no logical sense when propane expands 270 times its volume from a liquid to a vapor. Why would the stored energy for a Specification 39 cylinder with vapor be limited to 75 cubic inches and for a liquid have no limitations?

Specification 39 cylinders have a proven track record. Millions of these cylinders have been manufactured and used for the safe and reliable storage and transportation of compressed gases and liquefied compressed gases. This proven safety and reliable track record includes 2.1 flammable liquefied compressed gases limited to 75 cubic inch capacity. Worthington's concerns of using up to 1526 cubic inch volume cylinders for 2.1 flammable liquefied compressed gases centers around the puncture resistance and corrosion resistance which are “real life” issues in the transportation of cylinders. Releasing basically four gallons of propane from a Specification 39 cylinder from a puncture or corrosion is not in the best interest of safety. Worthington strongly recommends that PHMSA review the following and consider it as immediate changes to 49 CFR 173.304a and 173.304(d)(3).

PHMSA agrees with the petitioner and will permit valves other than those listed in CGA S-1.1 to be used by adding the word “may” to this phrase in the regulatory text: “a CG-7 pressure relief valve may be used.” In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing these recommended changes.

Worthington Cylinders also asked PHMSA to explain what is meant by “chemical under pressure” in § 173.302a(a)(3) as it relates to this phrase: “or 50L for chemical under pressure.” Section 173.302a(a) describes detailed filling requirements for the shipment of non-liquefied (permanent) compressed gases in specification cylinders. Specifically, § 173.302a(a)(3) limits the capacity of a DOT 39 cylinder to 1.23 L (75 in
3
) when the cylinder is filled with a Division 2.1 material or 50 L (3050 in
3
) when the cylinder is filled with a chemical under pressure. PHMSA revised §§ 173.301b and 173.302a in a final rule [Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0027 (HM-215L); 78 FR 988] to increase the maximum allowable water capacity for non-refillable cylinders containing chemicals under pressure to 50 liters (3050in
3
); therefore, this request has been addressed.

The phrase in question was added to the HMR under a final rule published January 7, 2013 (HM-215L; 78 FR 988). Under that final rule we introduced new HMT entries for “chemical under pressure,” assigned authorized non-bulk and bulk packaging, and included other safety requirements such as quantity and filling limits. See §§ 172.102, Special Provision 362, and 173.335. In the HM-215L final rule (78 FR 989), PHMSA discussed a comment received from 3M in support of the proposal; however, 3M requested that PHMSA authorize the use of non-refillable cylinders (
i.e.,
DOT 39s) larger than 1.25 liters containing flammable gas consistent with the UN Model Regulations. We noted our ” intent regarding the chemical under pressure entry was to comprehensively align the requirements of this entry with international standards.” In the HM-215L final rule, we revised the packaging requirements for chemical under pressure to authorize the use of nonrefillable cylinders larger than 1.25 liters for chemical under pressure, hence, the inclusion of “or 50L for chemical under pressure” for DOT 39 cylinders in § 173.302a(a)(3). This language applies to “chemicals under pressure” as described in Special Provision 362 and must not be applied to flammable gases. PHMSA is also looking to resolve the discrepancy created by this allowance for larger capacities for this cylinder type because it exceeds the size limits authorized under the design specifications for DOT 39 cylinders in § 178.65. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise § 173.302a(a)(3) to clarify any confusion on the applicable capacity limits.

P-1626

The CGA submitted P-1626 requesting that PHMSA IBR CGA C-1,

Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders,
Tenth Edition (2009) and revise the regulations regarding the retesting of cylinders by the hydrostatic test as they are not only unclear to requalifiers, but also missing necessary information rendering the regulations unenforceable. Although the petition proposed the Tenth Edition, currently there is an Eleventh Edition (2016) available. PHMSA is proposing to IBR this most current version and requests comment regarding this action.

PHMSA identified approximately 980 entities that conduct hydrostatic testing, including cylinder requalifiers, retesters, and manufacturers.

In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to adopt clarifying language and IBR the CGA C-1 standard, as proposed in P-1626, as it provides more detailed instructions and illustrations than what is possible in the HMR and addresses the deficiencies detailed in the petition. The CGA requests that this proposed IBR apply to the following sections: §§ 178.36, 178.37, 178.38, 178.39, 178.42, 178.44, 178.45, 178.46, 178.47, 178.50, 178.50, 178.51, 178.53, 178.55, 178.56, 178.57, 178.58, 178.59, 178.60, 178.61, 178.65, 178.68, 180.205, and 180.209. The incorporation of CGA C-1, 2016 supports the goal of increasing compliance and improving overall safety as its reference increases clarity, provides enhanced guidance, and reduces confusion between CGA current dates and IBR versions. Specific clarifications include instructions for performing volumetric expansion tests using both the water-jacket and direct expansion methods, as well as a provision for retesting in case of equipment failure or operator error. Revising the HMR to IBR CGA C-1 will provide the desired clarification without imposing requirements that are potentially costly or unnecessarily difficult.

P-1628

The CGA submitted P-1628 requesting that PHMSA IBR CGA C-3-2005, Reaffirmed 2011,
Standards for Welding on Thin-Walled, Steel Cylinders,
Seventh Edition as material incorporated by reference in the HMR. Presently, the HMR reference CGA C-3-1994,
Standards for Welding on Thin-Walled Steel Cylinders,
Fourth Edition.

This publication contains information on welding process qualification, welding operator qualifications, tensile testing, bend testing, and radiographic inspection. The changes between the C-3-1994, Fourth Edition and the C-3-2005, Reaffirmed 2011, Seventh Editions were predominantly editorial or technical in nature. The significant technical changes are summarized as follows and can be reviewed in detail in the docket to this petition:

• Added section to the testing criteria to employ the use of macro etch samples in lieu of weld guided bend test and weld tensile testing when the cylinder size would not permit securing of proper size specimens.

• Clarified the weld bend testing procedure, weld bend testing tooling, and proper clearances that are required in the tooling.

• Clarified definitions for the welding procedure qualification and the welding operator weld qualification.

• Added tolerance section to C-3-2005, Reaffirmed 2011 that indicates the plus and minus tolerances when a specific dimensional tolerance is indicated in the publication.

• Added drawings to the C-3-2005, Reaffirmed 2011 illustrating different weld joint designs.

• Reviewed C-3-2005, Reaffirmed 2011 for conditional wording and revised it for enforceable wording.

PHMSA identified approximately 5,000 companies that would be subject to this standard, with the majority being classified as small businesses using SBA size standards (<500 employees).

This minor update to the regulations improves the timeliness and clarity of industry standards that are IBR. It supports the goal of facilitating voluntary compliance and reducing the burdens associated with references to outdated material. Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing these recommended changes.

P-1629

The CGA submitted P-1629 requesting that PHMSA IBR CGA C-14-2005, Reaffirmed 2010,
Procedures for Fire Testing of DOT Cylinder Pressure Relief Device Systems,
Fourth Edition, as a material incorporated by reference in the HMR. Presently, the HMR reference CGA C-14-1979,
Procedures for Fire Testing of DOT Cylinder Pressure Relief Device Systems,
First Edition. Since the incorporation of this edition, CGA has revised the publication in 1992, 1999, 2005, and reaffirmed the publication in 2010.

This standard describes test procedures and apparatus for fire testing compressed gas cylinder safety (pressure) relief devices as was required by former § 173.34(d). The procedures are applicable for cylinders that are less than 500 pounds water capacity and designed to provide a means of testing to DOT requirements anywhere with reliable test data and repeatable test results. The changes from the 1979 First Edition to the 2005 and Reaffirmed 2010 editions of CGA C-14 were predominantly editorial or technical in nature. The significant technical changes are summarized as follows and can be reviewed in detail in the docket to this petition:

• Permitted the use of an alternate lading. If the intended lading would present an increased safety hazard during the test procedure (such as the use of poisonous or flammable gas), the cylinder may be charged with a typical liquefied or non-liquefied gas. Gases with essentially similar physical properties may be classified as typical.

• Added the Bonfire Test Method to the publication. This permitted the Board of Explosives (BOE) test method to be used to qualify pressure relief device systems. The Bonfire Test Method was successfully used to qualify pressure relief device systems for decades.

• Clarified what information is to be recorded before and during the actual test.

• Increased the water capacity of a cylinder that can be fire tested from 500 lb. water capacity to 1000 lbs. water capacity to permit a test method for all 4 series cylinders.

• Reviewed C-14-2005, Reaffirmed 2010 for conditional wording and modified it to replace conditional wording with enforceable wording, wherever appropriate.

PHMSA identified approximately 5,000 companies that would be subject to this standard, with the majority being classified as small businesses using SBA size standards (<500 employees).

This minor update to the regulations improves the timeliness and clarity of industry standards that are IBR. It supports the goal of facilitating voluntary compliance and reducing the burdens associated with references to outdated material. Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing these recommended changes.

P-1630

The CGA submitted P-1630 requesting that PHMSA revise the HMR requirements for DOT 4L welded insulated cylinders. Specifically, the CGA requests PHMSA make two changes:

(1) Add a Definition for “Recondition” to § 180.203

The CGA states “[t]he term `recondition' is distinct from work presently defined as repair or rebuild and describes work on a part or component of a DOT 4L welded insulated cylinder that does not involve repair or rebuilding of the inner containment vessel. For purposes of this

petition, the inner containment vessel refers to the term cylinder as defined in § 171.8. In addition, DOT 4L welded insulated cylinder refers to that packaging defined in § 178.57.” The CGA did not propose language for the definition.

The HMR prescribe the requirements for reconditioning DOT 4L cylinders in § 180.211, further specifying additional requirements for rebuilding DOT 4L cylinders in paragraph (e). “Recondition” is a word that describes a process that applies to several cylinder packaging types under the HMR. PHMSA is concerned that adding a definition for “recondition” that applies only to DOT 4L specification cylinders would cause confusion that may reduce the safe application of these regulations. Therefore, PHMSA is not proposing in this NPRM to define a “reconditioned cylinder” in § 180.203.

(2) Amend Paragraphs §§ 180.211(c) and 180.211(e) To Clarify when a Hydrostatic Test Must Be Performed on the Inner Containment Vessel After the DOT 4L Welded Insulated Cylinder has Undergone Repair as Interpreted in DOT Letters of Interpretation Reference Nos. 11-0237 and 12-0065

Reference No. 11-0237 states: “[t]he term `rebuild' is defined in § 180.203 as the replacement of a pressure part (
e.g.,
a wall, head, or pressure fitting) by welding. While a `rebuild' would be required when the inner vessel of a DOT-4 series cylinder is compromised, it is not the only scenario that would constitute a `rebuild.' DOT-4 series cylinders requiring rebuild, as defined in § 180.203, must do so in conformance with § 180.211. In addition, DOT 4L cylinders must meet additional requirements for repair specified in § 180.211(e) including proof pressure testing each inner containment vessel at two times its service pressure. DOT 4L cylinders which undergo procedures that are not defined as a rebuild in § 180.203 are not subject to the requirements of § 180.203(e).”

Reference No. 12-0065 states: “[t]he term `repair' is defined in § 180.203 as a procedure for correction of a condemned cylinder that may involve welding. A repair is not limited to the correction of a condemned cylinder that has had only its inner vessel compromised; therefore, DOT-4 series cylinders requiring repair, as defined in § 180.203, must be done in conformance with § 180.211. In addition, DOT 4L cylinders must meet additional requirements for repair specified in § 180.211(c) including being pressure-tested in conformance with the specifications under which the cylinder was originally manufactured. DOT 4L cylinders which undergo procedures that are not defined as a repair in § 180.203 are not subject to the requirements of § 180.211(c) including the requirement to be pressure-tested in conformance with the specifications under which the cylinder was originally manufactured.”

The CGA notes its understanding that these DOT interpretations “state that testing the inner containment vessel after reconditioning, as defined below, are relatively new and prior to these interpretations no such testing had taken place.” The CGA further notes that it “knows of no incidents related to the lack of such testing.”

While the requirements the petitioner is referring to have existed since 2002 [67 FR 51626]—and prior to that to some extent in former § 173.34—PHMSA agrees with the petitioner that adding language to clarify when a rebuilt DOT 4L cylinder and its components need to be pressure tested would make this requirement easier to understand; therefore, PHMSA is revising § 180.211(c) to include the clarifying language about this requirement included in letter Reference No. 11-0237.

The CGA further states its “purpose for requesting amendments to §§ 180.211(c) and 180.211(e) is to clarify that certain work on parts and components of a DOT 4L welded insulated cylinder other than the inner containment vessel does not require hydrostatic testing of the inner containment vessel. The addition and definition of the term `recondition' with respect to these DOT 4L welded insulated cylinders identifies this work and enables verification of the integrity of such work using a pneumatic leak test at 90% of service pressure for which the DOT 4L welded insulated cylinder was designed and tested and by using a mass spectrometer detection system.”

As previously stated, while this requirement has existed since 2002, PHMSA agrees with the petitioner that revising the language in § 180.211(e) to include the language in letter Reference No. 12-0065 would improve the understanding of this requirement and, thereby, possibly improve safety.

In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to amend § 180.211(c) and (e) for clarification as petitioned.

IV. Special Permits

In the ANPRM, PHMSA considered proposing revisions to adopt certain special permits into the HMR. Specifically, PHMSA proposed changes based on DOT-SPs 12929, 13318, and 13599. We are no longer proposing changes in this NPRM in association with these special permits because: (1) DOT-SP 12929 was determined not suitable for adoption under rulemaking HM-233F (80 FR 5340; January 30, 2015); and (2) DOT-SPs 13318 and 13599 were adopted under HM-233F (81 FR 3635; January 21, 2016).

Since publication of the ANPRM, we have considered proposing revisions to the HMR based on adoption of DOT-SP 14237. For over ten years, PHMSA has authorized the use of certain non-bulk DOT-specification cylinders to transport specific adsorbed gases under special permits. DOT-SP 14237, first issued on December 22, 2006, is general in its application in that it does not require the use of drawings and applications for DOT-specification cylinders that are specific to one company. Adopting this special permit would reduce costs associated with application and management, while also increasing safety and expanding the use of DOT-specification cylinders for adsorbed gases. PHMSA is not aware of any incident or investigation concerning the performance of packaging and transport under this special permit since its issuance; therefore, PHMSA is proposing in this NPRM to adopt the special permit into the HMR.

Furthermore, PHMSA added provisions to the HMR for shipping adsorbed gases in a final rule issued on January 7, 2015 [Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0260 (HM-215M); 80 FR 1075] applicable to UN pressure receptacles. Specifically, these changes incorporated international standards designed to allow the transportation of certain gases when they are adsorbed onto a porous solid material in a non-bulk UN standard pressure receptacle. Two commenters to the HM-215M NPRM requested that PHMSA also permit adsorbed gases in DOT-specification cylinders. One commenter, Entegris, Inc., proposed regulatory text that includes DOT cylinder specifications and provisions not previously authorized under DOT special permit. PHMSA chose not to accept the comment and did not adopt the changes at that time; however, PHMSA invites the public to review Entegris, Inc.'s comments under Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0260 at
www.regulations.gov
and to comment on the safety and costs associated with its proposal and its possible inclusion under new § 173.302d.

V. Agency Initiated Editorial Corrections

In an ongoing attempt to improve safety, PHMSA regularly reviews and revises the HMR to correct errors and

clarify any regulations that are unclear or confusing. PHMSA is adopting the following issues of concern into this NPRM and seeks comment regarding the changes.

Section 107.803

Section 107.803 provides approval procedures for independent inspection agencies (IIA) conducting cylinder inspections and verifications as required by parts 178 and 180. In its application for approval status, the IIA must provide information, including a detailed description of its qualifications and ability both to perform and to verify inspections. However, at present, the application information requirements of § 107.803(c)(3) only reference part 178. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise § 107.803(c)(3) to include part 180, subpart C for consistency.

Section 107.805

Section 107.805 provides approval procedures for persons to inspect, test, certify, repair, or rebuild a cylinder in accordance with the HMR. PHMSA is proposing to revise the requirements for application for approval of cylinder requalifiers to include a reference to the option of having a mobile cylinder requalification unit (
i.e.,
a mobile unit). See § 180.203 for further discussion.

Section 178.70

Section 178.70 provides approval for the manufacture of UN pressure receptacles (
i.e.,
cylinders). Current § 178.70(d) restricts the user (manufacturer) from the flexibility that is provided in the UN/ISO standards. The regulation as constructed results in additional cost and delay without any added safety. The UN/ISO standards are developed based on performance testing and include adequate testing for a wide range of design-type modifications. All UN/ISO standards to which the original design type conforms permit certain modifications to an approved design type. PHMSA has received several requests to revise this regulation to allow an authorized manufacturer to benefit from the UN Model Regulations and produce UN/ISO cylinders. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to adopt language consistent with UN/ISO standards to reduce the need for approvals.

Section 180.203

Section 180.203 specifies definitions that apply to cylinder use, qualification, and maintenance. PHMSA has encountered frequent problems regarding this section and is recommending the following revisions:

(1) Define and Incorporate “Mobile Unit” Requalification Operations

The hazardous materials program procedures of 49 CFR part 107 for approval of cylinder requalifiers do not specify the option of a “mobile cylinder requalification unit.” The intent of this operation is for a cylinder requalifier to be able to perform its requalifying function within a 100-mile radius of its primary place of business. To operate, a mobile cylinder requalifier must adhere to the requirements in a PHMSA-issued approval letter.

Since companies may not be familiar with the option to offer mobile testing of cylinders to their customers through an approval by the Associate Administrator, PHMSA is proposing in this NPRM to add a definition of “mobile unit” to the HMR in § 180.203 and a new paragraph in § 107.805 identifying application requirements for mobile units. These proposed revisions would enhance requalifiers' ability to perform cylinder requalifications under the scope of the HMR.

(2) Revise Definition of Proof Pressure Test for Cylinders

The HMR no longer prescribe modified hydrostatic pressure testing, which has been and continues to be the method of low-pressure testing of fire extinguishers. Not all retesters know that proof pressure testing allows the test to be performed with just air (no water), therefore taking approximately one-third the time of a modified hydro test without wasting water. The required test is only looking for leaks not determining a cylinder expansion percentage rate. We expect that use of a proof pressure will pass along cost savings to a requalifier.

The HMR prescribes in § 180.209(e) (for DOT 4-series cylinders) and (j) (for fire extinguishers) that a proof pressure test is authorized. In § 180.203, proof pressure test is defined as “a pressure test by interior pressurization without the determination of expansion of the cylinder” (
i.e.,
a leak test). In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise the definition of proof pressure test to specify that a liquid or a gas may be used to conduct the test. However, we note that the safety risk for conducting this test is substantially more using gas such as air versus a liquid such as water although this risk is lessened for low-pressure cylinders such as fire extinguishers. We seek comment on the impact of this revision and whether this clarification achieves the intent of enhancing compliance by specifying the air may be used for a proof pressure test. We also invite comment on a better method for communicating that a gas may be used for a proof pressure test, preferrable for low-pressure cylinders.

Section 180.207

Section 180.207(d) authorizes the use of ISO 6406 to requalify UN refillable seamless steel cylinders and UN refillable seamless steel tube cylinders. The current ISO 6406 has a limitation of 150 liters for the size of these cylinders, which is substantially less than the maximum volume of a UN refillable seamless steel tube (3,000 liters). PHMSA has received several requests for interpretation of this regulation and its application to the requalification of UN seamless steel pressure receptacles larger than 150 liters. PHMSA responded to these requests through a letter of clarification issued under Reference No. 13-0146, stating that § 180.207(d)(1) authorizes the requalification of seamless steel UN pressure receptacles larger than 150 liters. In addition, PHMSA Engineering staff is participating in an ISO/TC58/SC4 working group that is considering a revision to the ISO 6406 standard to include pressure receptacles larger than 150 liters; therefore, PHMSA is proposing in this NPRM to add the phrase “larger than 150 liters” after “including MEGC's pressure receptacles” to clarify that the use of larger UN pressure receptacles is permitted under § 180.207(d)(1).

Section 180.213

Section 180.213 prescribes marking requirements for the visual inspection of cylinders (see § 180.213 paragraphs (f)(5), (f)(8), and (f)(9)). In the past, PHMSA has allowed a visual (V) requalifier identification number (
i.e.,
a V number) to be marked in the same manner as a requalifier identification number (RIN) marking per § 180.213. V number markings have four different options for markings; however, PHMSA issues approval letters that permit a V number marking yet only provide three of the four available marking options and do not reference § 180.213.

Section 180.213 of the HMR should include the marking requirements for a V number consistent with those for an RIN. The V number could be placed in a square pattern as shown in § 180.213. However, marking a V number, which is a single letter followed by six numbers, in a square pattern like an RIN, which is a single letter followed by three numbers, requires clarification, as the marks vary. Including the marking requirements for V numbers into § 180.213 will make authorized options for these identifiers to be placed on a cylinder more widely understood.

PHMSA is proposing in this NPRM to include this V number marking in § 180.213(g).

Section 180.215

Section 180.215(a)(6) requires that a person who requalifies, repairs, or rebuilds cylinders must maintain in their records and report information contained in each applicable CGA or ASTM standard incorporated by reference under § 171.7 of the HMR that applies to requalifier activities. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to remove the last sentence of paragraph (a)(6) of this section to reduce confusion, as it essentially repeats what is requested in the first sentence of this paragraph.

VI. Section-by-Section Review

Section 107.803

Section 107.803(c)(3) states that each application to obtain approval to perform duties as an IIA must contain a detailed description of the applicant's qualifications and ability both to perform the inspections and to verify the inspections required by part 178 of the HMR or under the terms of a DOT special permit. In this NPRM, we propose to revise § 107.803(c)(3) to clarify that the applicant's description of his or her ability to perform and verify inspections must include those required under 49 CFR part 180, subpart C.

Section 107.805

Section 107.805(c) prescribes additional information an application must contain to obtain approval from PHMSA to requalify cylinders and pressure receptacles. In this NPRM, we propose to add paragraph (c)(5) to this section to clarify what information must be added to the application to authorize mobile unit requalifiers and the information necessary to acquire approval. We also propose to make a conforming edit to paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) by moving the “and” clause from paragraph (c)(3) to (c)(4).

Section 171.7

Section 171.7 lists reference standards and regulations incorporated by reference into the HMR that are not specifically set forth in the HMR. Paragraph (g) incorporates into the HMR publications issued by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, specifically, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. In this NPRM, we propose to revise the list of sections in paragraph (g)(1) to include § 173.302d based on the addition of this new section to the HMR and its reference to this standard in § 173.302d(b)(11). Also, paragraph (n) specifically incorporates into the HMR publications issued by the Compressed Gas Association, an industrial and medical gas association that, among others, develops standards and practices for the safe transportation of gases and their containers. In this NPRM, we propose to add to § 171.7(n) the latest CGA publication C-1,
Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders.
We also propose to update the editions of CGA publications C-3, C-6, C-14, and S-1.1 already incorporated in the HMR. The remaining changes to paragraph (n) are editorial based on PHMSA's initiative to renumber the list to accommodate the new publications and add missing section number symbols, punctuation, and spaces. Also, note a weblink in the
ADDRESSES
section of the introduction to this rulemaking to review these publications during the comment period. The documents are summarized below.

The ASME publication is 2015 ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) Section VIII—Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels Division 1.
The publication provides requirements applicable to the design, fabrication, inspection, testing, and certification of pressure vessels operation at either internal or external pressures exceeding 15 psig. Division 1 also contains mandatory and nonmandatory appendices detailing supplementary design criteria, nondestructive examination and inspection acceptance standards. During the open comment period of this NPRM, this publication is freely available on the ASME Web site at:
http://go.asme.org/PHMSA-ASME-PRM.

The Compressed Gas Association publications include the following:

(1) CGA C-1,
Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders
(2016). During the open comment period of this NPRM, this publication is freely available on the CGA Web site at:
https://www.cganet.com/customer/dot.aspx.
This publication provides the standard(s) for pressure testing of compressed gas cylinders for many newly manufactured cylinders and requalification of cylinders. This standard contains operating and equipment requirements necessary to perform pressure testing of compressed gas cylinders properly. Tests include the water jacket method, direct expansion method, and proof pressure method.

(2) CGA C-3,
Standards for Welding on Thin-Walled Steel Cylinders
(2005) (Reaffirmed 2011). During the open comment period of this NPRM, this publication is freely available on the CGA Web site at:
https://www.cganet.com/customer/dot.aspx.
This publication contains information on welding process qualification, welding operator qualifications, tensile testing, bend testing, and radiographic inspection. Additionally, this publication clarifies dimensional tolerances and when weld macro etch can be used for weld process approval and welder qualification approval.

(3) CGA C-6,
Standards for Visual Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders
(2013). During the open comment period of this NPRM, this publication is freely available on the CGA Web site at:
https://www.cganet.com/customer/dot.aspx.
This publication provides cylinder users (requalifiers, owners, fillers, operators, etc.) with criteria to accept, reject, and condemn steel compressed gas cylinders. This standard does not cover all circumstances for each individual cylinder type and condition of lading. Inspection procedures include preparation of cylinders for inspection, exterior inspection, interior inspection (if required), nature and extent of damage to be looked for, and for some tests, the conditions of the cylinder, etc. A sample inspection report is provided in an appendix.

(4) CGA C-14,
Procedures for Fire Testing of DOT Cylinder Pressure Relief Device Systems
(2005) (Reaffirmed 2010). During the open comment period of this NPRM, this publication is freely available on the CGA Web site at:
https://www.cganet.com/customer/dot.aspx.
This publication describes test procedures and apparatus for fire testing compressed gas cylinder safety (pressure) relief devices as required by the HMR. The procedures are applicable for cylinders that are less than 500 lbs. water capacity and designed to provide a means of testing to the HMR anywhere with reliable test data and repeatable test results.

(5) CGA S-1.1,
Pressure Relief Device Standards—Part 1—Cylinders for Compressed Gases
(2011). During the open comment period of this NPRM, this publication is freely available on the CGA Web site at:
https://www.cganet.com/customer/dot.aspx.
This publication provides the standard(s) for selection of the correct pressure relief device that is required to meet the requirements of the HMR for over 150 gases. It provides guidance on when a pressure relief device can be optionally omitted, and when the use of a pressure relief device is prohibited. It provides direction and guidance on the manufacture and testing of pressure relief devices as well as the operation parameters and maintenance.

Section 171.23

Section 171.23 prescribes requirements for transport of specific materials and packaging under international transportation standards such as the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. Paragraph (a)(4) outlines requirements for filling of cylinders for export or use onboard a vessel. In this NPRM, we propose to revise the marking requirements consistent with changes made to § 180.213.

Section 172.400a

Section 172.400a(a)(1) prescribes exceptions from labeling for Dewar flasks or cylinders that comply with the provisions of this paragraph and are durably marked and labeled in conformance with CGA C-7. In this NPRM, we propose to revise paragraph (a)(1) to clarify how this labeling exception applies to overpacks.

Section 173.3

Section 173.3(d)(1) prescribes how a damaged or leaking cylinder that contains hazardous material may be transported in a non-DOT-specification fully opening hinged-head or removable head steel salvage cylinder. In this NPRM, we propose to permit cylinders that contain Class 4 or 5 materials to also use this exception. In addition, because of the proposal to include Class 4 or 5 materials as authorized material for salvage cylinders, we are reformatting the regulatory text to reference those materials in damaged or leaked cylinders that are excluded from being allowed to be overpacked in a salvage cylinder rather than listing those that are authorized.

Section 173.301

Section 173.301 provides the general requirements for shipment of compressed gases and other hazardous material in cylinders. In this NPRM, we propose to clarify the marking requirements of paragraph (a)(9), specifically use of the “OVERPACK” mark to indicate the combination packaging contains inner packagings that conform to specifications. Additionally, in paragraphs (c) and (f), we propose an editorial revision to the section citation of CGA S-1.1 to correctly read 9.1.1. Finally, we propose to revise paragraph (f) to clarify the minimum burst pressure requirements for DOT 39 cylinders used to transport compressed or liquefied oxidizing gases.

Section 173.302

Section 173.302(a)(2) prescribes the requirements for adsorbed gases. In this NPRM, we propose to include references to new § 173.302d applicable to DOT-specification cylinders and to replace reference to “UN cylinders” with “UN pressure receptacles” for consistency with other parts of the HMR.

Section 173.302a

Section 173.302a(a)(3) prescribes the filling requirements for DOT 39 cylinders that contain Division 2.1 gas or chemical under pressure. In this NPRM, we propose to clarify the capacity (internal volume) requirements to make it clear that the 1.23 L limit applies to Division 2.1 material and the 50 L limit applies to chemical under pressure classed as Division 2.1 (see § 172.102, special provision 362). We also propose an editorial correction to the start of paragraph (a)(3) by removing the non-italicized “DOT 39.”

Section 173.302d

In this NPRM, we propose to add new § 173.302d prescribing requirements for transportation of adsorbed gases in DOT-specification cylinders. The requirements of this new section are based on the adoption of special permit DOT-SP 14237 provisions.

Section 173.304a

Section 173.304a prescribes the maximum permitted filling density and authorized cylinders for specific gases. In this NPRM, we propose to add new paragraph (a)(3) to § 173.304a to clearly state that the maximum capacity (internal volume) of a DOT 39 cylinder containing liquefied flammable gas is 1.23 liters (75 in
3
). We also propose to require these cylinders to be equipped with a pressure relief valve, as prescribed in CGA S-1.1, unless the material is not listed in CGA S-1.1, in which case a CG-7 pressure relief valve must be used.

Section 173.306

Section 173.306 provides exceptions from the requirements of the HMR for limited quantities of compressed gas. Paragraph (g) excepts water pump system tanks charged with compressed air or limited quantities of nitrogen to not over 40 psig from labeling and specification packaging when shipped in conformance with the requirements prescribed in the paragraph. In this NPRM, we propose to revise § 173.306(g) to authorize tanks to be tested to current standards in the HMR or the manufacturer's specified maximum working pressure, to allow water pump system tanks to be charged with helium, to clarify that transportation by aircraft is not an authorized mode of transport.

Section 173.309

In this NPRM, we propose to revise § 173.309 to state that the requirements applicable to fire extinguishers also apply to those cylinders used as part of a fire suppression system.

Section 173.312

Section 173.312(b)(1) prescribes the filling requirements for multiple element gas containers (MEGCs). In this NPRM, we propose requirements for filling pressure receptacles containing liquefied compressed gas by weight.

Section 178.35

Section 178.35(f) prescribes the marking requirements that apply to DOT-specification cylinders. In this NPRM, we propose to add new paragraph (f)(7) to § 178.35 to require that cylinder tare weight or mass weight, and water capacity, be marked on certain DOT-specification cylinders filled by weight.

Sections 178.36, 178.37, 178.38, 178.39, 178.42, 178.44, 178.45, 178.46, 178.47, 178.50, 178.51, 178.53, 178.55 178.56, 178.57, 178.58, 178.59, 178.60, 178.61, 178.65, and 178.68

These sections prescribe the DOT-specification requirements for a cylinder type including the performance standards for pressure testing of the cylinder. In this NPRM, we propose to require that testing and equipment used to conduct the pressure testing be in conformance with CGA C-1,
Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders,
to provide for consistency and clarity in performance of pressure testing. We also propose to revise the format of the pressure testing paragraphs for greater consistency.

Sections 178.50, 178.51, 178.61, and 178.68

These sections prescribe DOT 4-series specification requirements. These specifications are often unclear to manufacturers and enforcement personnel. In this NPRM, we propose to revise the specification requirements to promote consistent and uniform manufacturing practices for DOT 4-series cylinders.

Section 178.70

Section 178.70(d) prescribes the requirements to obtain design approval of a UN pressure receptacle. In this NPRM, we propose to revise paragraph (d) to include language that an approval for a design modification is not required if the specific design modification is

covered under the UN/ISO standard for the design type already approved.

Section 180.203

Section 180.203 prescribes definitions that apply to the qualification, maintenance, and use of cylinders under the HMR. In this NPRM, we propose to add new definitions for the terms or phrases “accuracy,” “accuracy grade,” “actual test pressure,” “calibrated cylinder,” “error,” “master gauge,” “mobile unit,” “overpressurized,” “percent permanent expansion,” “precision,” “proof pressure test,” “reference gauge,” and “service pressure”; and revise the definitions for “commercially free of corrosive components,” “defect,” and “test pressure.” These proposed definitions will clarify the cylinder requirements prescribed in 49 CFR part 180, subpart C.

Section 180.205

Section 180.205 prescribes the general requirements for requalifying DOT-specification cylinders. In this NPRM, we propose to revise and add new regulatory text for clarity. Specifically, we propose to clarify the conditions requiring test and inspection of cylinders under paragraph (d) by including a reference to evidence of grinding; revise the paragraph (f) visual inspection requirements to include reference to shot blasting and “chasing” of cylinders; clarify and revise the paragraph (g) retest equipment tolerances for consistency with ISO standards 6406 and 10461 (
i.e.,
standards for periodic inspection and testing of gas cylinders) which are both incorporated by reference in the HMR in § 180.207 to allow for broader use of retest equipment (we invite comment on this course of action relative to the tolerances provided for in CGA C-1); revise the paragraph (i) cylinder condemnation requirements to clarify the responsibilities of the requalifier and add conditions under which a cylinder must be condemned; and include a reference to training materials, under new paragraph (j), that are suitable for training persons who requalify cylinders using the volumetric expansion test method.

Section 180.207

Section 180.207 prescribes requirements for requalifying UN pressure receptacles. In this NPRM, we propose to revise and add new regulatory text for clarity. Specifically, we propose to clarify the language prohibiting the use of a UN pressure receptacle beyond its service life by, for example, removing approval authorization language; to revise the requalification procedures for seamless steel cylinders to include MEGC pressure receptacles larger than 150 liters water capacity; and to revise the requalification schedule for dissolved acetylene UN cylinders to be requalified no sooner than five years and no later than ten years from the date of manufacture.

Section 180.209

Section 180.209 prescribes requirements for requalifying specification cylinders. In this NPRM, we propose to revise and add new regulatory text for clarity; and to incorporate the current version of CGA C-1,
Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders.
Specifically, we propose to revise the paragraph (a) table 1 to include reference to the paragraph (e) conditions for an alternate requalification period; the paragraph (b) conditions for star-marking of a DOT 3A or 3AA cylinder; and the paragraph (m) requalification conditions for DOT 3AL cylinders made of 6351-T6 aluminum alloy.

Section 180.211

Section 180.211 prescribes requirements to repair, rebuild, and reheat treat DOT-4 series specification cylinders. In this NPRM, we propose to clarify that the requirements to repair DOT 4L cylinders in paragraph (c) of this section are for rebuilding the cylinders and to clarify paragraph (e) for when a hydrostatic test may be performed on the inner containment vessel of a DOT 4L welded insulated cylinder. We do not propose in this NPRM to add a definition for “recondition” to § 180.203 because of our concern that adding this definition for only DOT 4L cylinders might cause further confusion and reduce safety.

Section 180.212

Section 180.212(a) prescribes requirements to repair seamless DOT 3-series specification cylinders and seamless UN pressure receptacles. In this NPRM, we propose to require an ultrasonic examination on DOT 3-series cylinders and seamless UN pressure receptacles after any grinding is performed on these cylinders.

Section 180.213

Section 180.213 prescribes requirements for marking DOT-specification cylinders and UN pressure receptacles that are successfully requalified. In this NPRM, we propose to revise the requalification marking method to clarify the steps involved and that stamping the sidewall of the cylinder is prohibited. Additionally, we propose to clarify the marking requirements for foreign cylinders filled for export under paragraph (d) and to include two new marking requirements under paragraph (f) for designation of grinding with ultrasonic wall thickness examination and for designation of requalification of a foreign cylinder requalified in conformance with §§ 171.23(a)(4) and 180.209(l) of this subchapter. Finally, we propose to add visual inspection identifier number marking requirements under a new paragraph (g).

Section 180.215

Section 180.215 prescribes reporting and retention requirements for a person who requalifies, repairs, or rebuilds cylinders. In this NPRM, we propose to clarify what information these documents must contain.

49 CFR Part 180, Appendix C

Part 180, appendix C prescribes the requirements eddy current examination equipment must meet to inspect DOT 3AL, 6351-T6 aluminum alloy cylinders. In this NPRM, we propose to retitle the appendix and revise paragraph 1 for clarity regarding equipment calibration procedures when conducting eddy current examination.

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This NPRM

Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5128) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to “prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.” Section 5117(a) authorizes the Secretary to issue a special permit exempting compliance with a regulation prescribed in §§ 5103(b), 5104, 5110, or 5112 “to a person transporting, or causing to be transported, hazardous material in a way that achieves a safety level at least equal to the safety level required under [the Federal hazmat law], or consistent with the public interest . . . if a required safety level does not exist.” The issues described in this NPRM respond to 20 outstanding petitions for rulemaking.

B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This NPRM is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Neither was it considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures order issued by the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034].

Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) is “supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993.” In addition, Executive Order 13563 specifically requires agencies to: (1) Involve the public in the regulatory process; (2) promote simplification and harmonization thro

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-16689. Public record. Not legal advice.