Hazardous Materials: Requirements for DOT Specification Cylinders

SUMMARY: RSPA proposes to amend certain requirements in the Hazardous

Materials Regulations (HMR) to establish four new DOT cylinder

specifications and to revise the requirements for maintenance,

requalification, and repair of all DOT specification cylinders. In

addition, RSPA proposes to: revise the requirements for approval of

cylinder requalifiers, independent inspection agencies, and nondomestic

chemical analysis and tests; revise the cylinder requalification,

maintenance and repair requirements; and to revise the requirements for

hazardous materials that are authorized to be offered for

transportation in cylinders. Finally, this NPRM incorporates a proposal

to remove from use aluminum alloy 6351-T6 that was published in an

advance notice under Docket HM-176A and terminates that docket (RIN:

2131-AB51).

This action is being taken to--simplify the HMR for construction of

cylinders; provide for flexibility in the design, construction and use

of cylinders; recognize recent advances in cylinder manufacturing and

requalification technologies; promote safety though simplification of

the regulations; reduce the need for exemptions; and facilitate

international commerce. The intended effect of this action is to

enhance the safe transportation of hazardous materials in cylinders.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received on or before January 28,

1999.

Public Meeting Date: A public meeting will be held on December 8,

1998; from 9:30 am to 4:00 pm. An additional meeting may be scheduled

if there is substantial interest.

ADDRESSES: Written Comments: Address comments to the Dockets Management

System, U.S. Department of Transportation, PL 401, 400 Seventh St., SW,

Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket number,

RSPA 98-3684(HM-220), and should be submitted in two copies. Persons

wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments should

include a self-addressed stamped postcard. The Dockets Management

System is located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building, at the

above address.

Public dockets may be reviewed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to

5:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday, excluding Federal holidays. In addition,

comments can be reviewed by accessing the DOT Homepage (http://

www.dot.gov). Comments may also be submitted by E-mail to

``[email protected]''. In every case, the comment should refer to the

Docket number set forth above.

Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held in Room 3200-3204

at the U.S. Department of Transportation's Nassif Building, 400 7th

Street SW, Washington DC, 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Freeman, telephone number (202)

366-4545, Office of Hazardous Materials Technology, or Ryan Posten,

telephone number (202) 366-8553, Office of Hazardous Materials

Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Federal hazardous material transportation law (Federal hazmat law),

49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to

regulate the manufacture and continuing qualification of packagings

used to transport hazardous materials in commerce, or packagings

certified under Federal hazmat law for the transportation of hazardous

materials in commerce. The HMR, 49 CFR parts 171-180, contain

requirements for the manufacture, use, and requalification of cylinders

subject to Federal hazmat law, including defining materials and methods

of construction, the frequency and manner of inspection and testing,

standards for cylinder rejection and condemnation, cylinder marking and

recordkeeping, authorizations for packaging hazardous materials in

cylinders, filling, loading, unloading, and carriage in transportation.

Historically, Federal authority to regulate the transportation of

compressed gases was given to the former Interstate Commerce Commission

(ICC) through the Transportation of Explosives Act, 35 Stat. 1135,

section 233 (March 4, 1909), which was later amended in 1921, at 41

Stat. 1445, Sec. 233. In 1911 the ICC adopted a series of ``Shipping

Container Specifications,'' among which the ICC 3 specification for

seamless steel cylinders was codified. That same year, the ICC 4

specification for a lap-welded cylinder for anhydrous ammonia was also

published. As the welding process improved, from the riveted/brazed

welds to resistance welding and then butt welding by the metal-arc

process, the ICC 4 Specification series was expanded to include the

4BA, the 4BW, and others. By 1914, two other cylinder specifications

were codified: the ICC 7 specification for steel cylinders for low

pressure, nonliquefied gas, (which have carried over to the present

regulations, but not as specification 7) and the ICC 8 specification

for acetylene gas cylinders, which still exists today with minor

changes.

In 1930, the ICC implemented regulations for periodic inspection

and testing of cylinders; the regulations, as amended, were first

published in the Federal Register on December 12, 1940 (5 FR 4908).

During the 1930's and 1940's, the Compressed Gas Association (CGA)

developed and refined the water jacket test method for determining the

serviceability of a cylinder. During World War II, there was a shortage

of high pressure gas cylinders. Because of CGA's work on steel wall

stress limitations, the ICC granted ``temporary'' regulatory relief to

increase the gas carrying capacity of existing cylinders by allowing

the cylinders to be filled 10% over their marked service pressures, and

by marking those cylinders with a plus, ``+'', mark. Ten years later,

the regulations were codified into the Code of Federal Regulations (15

FR 8261; Dec. 2, 1950). In 1967, pursuant to the Department of

Transportation Act, Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931, regulatory

responsibility for the transportation of dangerous articles in commerce

was transferred from the ICC to DOT.

Through rulemaking and the issuance of exemptions from the

regulations under 49 CFR part 107, subpart B, materials other than

steel (e.g., aluminum and composite cylinders) now are authorized for

use. Nevertheless, apart from the substitution of the ``DOT''

identifier for the ``ICC'' identifier, many of today's basic

requirements remain virtually unchanged from the time they were first

incorporated into the regulations.

Over the years, RSPA has received numerous petitions for rulemaking

requesting various changes to the cylinder requirements. CGA filed most

of these petitions that request changes to

[[Page 58461]]

the cylinder specifications. In 1969, CGA submitted a petition (P-69)

containing six new proposals and revising eight previously-filed

petitions. Many of these 14 petitions were handled in subsequent

rulemakings such as Docket HM-69 adding a DOT 39 non-reusable, non-

refillable specification cylinder (August 24, 1971; 36 FR 16579),

Docket HM-85 updating the DOT-4L cylinder material properties (Nov. 5,

1971; 36 FR 21287), and Docket HM-99 adding the DOT-3T specification

cylinder (Aug. 15, 1973; 38 FR 21989).

In 1981, RSPA adopted a DOT 3AL specification under Docket HM-176

(46 FR 62452). This new specification for a seamless aluminum cylinder,

made of definitely prescribed alloys, was based in part on the

petitions received from industry and an agency initiative to

consolidate and eliminate the need for seven exemptions authorizing the

manufacture of seamless aluminum cylinders. In 1984, CGA petitioned (P-

953) to include a welded stainless steel cylinder similar to the DOT-

4BW. At that time, CGA proposed the designation ``4SS'' for the new

stainless steel cylinder.

In 1990, CGA petitioned to add a new 3F specification for a

seamless steel compressed gas cylinder designed for a high stress level

similar to the DOT-3T, but with a stronger structural integrity similar

to the DOT-3AA cylinder. The proposed 3FM specification provides for a

greater efficiency in gas transportation.

The above-mentioned petitions were given full consideration in the

development of this NPRM. In developing this NPRM, RSPA worked closely

with the cylinder manufacturing and maintenance industries, and held

several meetings with CGA to obtain clarification of the CGA petitions.

RSPA also held public outreach meetings with industry that were

announced in the Federal Register. The industry proposals and petitions

have been refined by RSPA based on RSPA's compliance inspections and

exemption program, interpretations issued by RSPA, and certain industry

consensus standards and practices that have proven to be safe. RSPA

believes the proposals in this NPRM are consistent with sound industry

practice and incorporate modern manufacture and requalification

technology.

Some of the more significant proposals contained in this NPRM are:

1. The establishment of four new cylinder specifications that are

more performance-oriented and the removal of several obsolete

specifications. These proposed specifications are expressed in metric

units, require marking of the cylinder with test pressure in place of

service pressure, and are distinguishable by their specification

designation markings.

2. The new specifications allows greater flexibility in the design

and construction of metric-marked cylinders.

3. Independent inspection of all metric-marked cylinders, both

seamless and welded.

4. Design qualification testing of metric-marked cylinders.

5. The requalification of metric-marked cylinders and certain

nonmetric-marked cylinders using thickness and shear wave ultrasonic

testing in place of the volumetric pressure test.

6. Requiring any person who performs a requalification function

that requires marking an inspection or retest date on the cylinder to

have approval from the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials

Safety (herein after referred to as the Associate Administrator).

7. Standardizing the requirements for the repair and rebuilding of

DOT 4 series cylinders, other than the DOT 4L.

8. Allowing a 10-year interval for requalification of DOT 3-series

metric-marked cylinders used in certain types of service.

9. Allowing a 15-year interval for requalification of certain DOT

4-series metric-marked cylinders used in certain types of service.

10. Allowing, upon approval by the Associate Administrator, the

application of requalification markings on cylinders by using

alternative methods that produce durable legible marks.

11. Implementing valve damage protection and puncture resistance

criteria for all DOT specification cylinders used for Division 2.3 or

6.1 materials in Hazard Zone B, and puncture resistance criteria for

those in Hazard Zone A.

12. Discontinuing authorization for a filled cylinder with a

specified service life from being offered for transportation in

commerce after its service life has expired.

13. Providing filling pressures for metric-marked cylinders based

on critical temperature, test pressure, and draft ISO Standard 11622.

14. Requiring that pressure relief devices on all metric-marked

specification cylinders be set at no less than test pressure. Requiring

that pressure relief devices on all 3-series, nonmetric-marked

specification cylinders be set at no less than test pressure from the

first requalification due after the effective date of the final rule.

II. New specification Standards for Metric-marked Cylinders

A. Consolidation of Cylinder Standards

As discussed above, the current cylinder requirements have their

origin in the early 1900's. The regulations were developed in a

piecemeal fashion, with adjustments being made to address particular

situations and problems on a case-by-case basis. This NPRM represents

RSPA's first comprehensive review of the cylinder requirements.

RSPA proposes to establish four new cylinder specifications for

seamless and welded cylinders. These proposed cylinder specifications

are more performance oriented and incorporate provisions that recognize

certain domestic and international practices. Cylinders made to these

specifications would be marked in metric units and would be

distinguished by a unique specification marking that closely

approximates the markings in draft International Standards Organization

(ISO) and the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Technical

Committee, entitled ISO/TC58/SC4 ``Gas Cylinders Operational

Requirements,'' based on CEN Standard EN 1089-1, ``Transportable gas

cylinders--Gas cylinder identification--Part 1: Stampmarking.''

The new seamless cylinder specifications are identified as DOT 3M,

3ALM, and 3FM. The welded cylinder specification is identified as the

DOT 4M. Eventually, RSPA anticipates that the DOT 3M specification will

replace the current DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AX, 3AAX, 3B, and 3BN specifications.

The DOT 3ALM specification will replace the 3AL specifications. The DOT

3FM will replace the higher strength 3AA and the 3T specifications. The

DOT 4M will replace the 4B, 4BA, 4BW, 4B240X, 4B240ET, and 4E. In

future rulemakings, RSPA plans to propose new metric-marked cylinder

specifications to replace the current specifications for the DOT 3E,

3HT, 4D, 4DA and 4DS; the 4L; the 8 and 8AL; and the DOT 39.

The basic specification requirements, those common to most metric-

marked cylinders, are in proposed Sec. 178.69. This section contains

definitions, material of construction, duties of the inspector, and

criteria for all design and production qualification tests that may be

required by the individual specifications. Proposed Sec. 178.70

contains requirements applicable to seamless cylinders. The individual

specifications, containing additional requirements, are in Sec. 178.71

for the DOT 3M, Sec. 178.72 for the DOT 3ALM, and Sec. 178.73 for the

DOT 3FM. Proposed Sec. 178.81 contains

[[Page 58462]]

requirements applicable to DOT 4M welded cylinders.

In all cases where the new proposed specifications differ, the new

specification requirements will have a level of integrity that is

equivalent to, or greater than, the current nonmetric specification

requirements. Significant changes from current requirements are

discussed further in this preamble.

B. Cylinder Filling Limits

CGA petitioned RSPA to change the test pressure from 5/3 times

service pressure for currently authorized DOT specification seamless

cylinders to 3/2 times service pressure for newly constructed DOT

specification seamless cylinders. In effect, the CGA proposal would

increase the filling limit for most of the new seamless DOT

specification cylinders to that currently authorized for cylinders

marked with a ``+'' sign (see 49 CFR 173.302(c)). In the historical and

technical information provided to support its petition, CGA stated:

I. Background

In 1942 during the height of industrial production for WWII, a

shortage of high pressure gas cylinders developed. The shortage was

hampering the War effort. The three manufacturers of large size

cylinders were also forging shells and bombs and did not have

capacity to forge those and the required quantities of high pressure

steel cylinders.

The War Production Board brought this concern to the Compressed

Gas Association (CGA) to seek a remedy for the shortage of high

pressure cylinders. One idea was to start up new production by

spinning seamless tubing, which was initiated by Cueno-Press and

Taylor Forge; but that would take months. An immediate ``temporary''

relief was conceived which was to increase gas carrying capacity by

allowing an ``overfill'' of existing cylinders. After careful study,

the increase of 10% in filling pressure (i.e., from 2015 to 2215

psi) was considered safe and technically sound because of the

conservative design required by DOT Specification 3A and of the

existing high pressure cylinders produced thereto.

For example: A 10% increase in wall stress at the increased

filling pressure maintained the operating stress well below the

yield point of the steel; and so, cyclic fatigue failure would not

become a factor for the ductile, low strength steel. Furthermore,

the operating stress would still be far below the ultimate tensile

strength providing an adequate safety factor which related service

pressure to rupture pressure; and the only way the cylinder pressure

of permanent gases could reach burst pressure was by involvement in

a fire.

By joint agreement between the War Production Board, Interstate

Commerce Commission (ICC) and the Gas Industry, it was decided to

immediately allow a ``10% overfill'' for the existing cylinder

fleet. This was to be allowed for both flammable and non-flammable

permanent gases.

To make this effective required a change in the ``Regulations''

covering ``Charging of Cylinders with Non-liquefied Compressed

Gases'' because it was to be applied to existing cylinders as well

as new production. Therefore, section 173.302 was changed and 178

was not changed to cover cylinder design and production. Thus, a 10%

increase in the gas carrying capacity of the existing cylinder fleet

and new current production was immediately achieved. This had the

effect of adding 10% additional cylinders.

II. Technical Rationale for Allowing 10% Higher Fill Pressures

A. Introduction

The fleet of DOT 3 Series cylinders in use during the war years

performed safely without a service failure, notably from fatigue or

gas pressure rupture. Thus, the carefully considered decision to

allow the charging pressure to be increased by 10% was considered to

be proven safe and technically valid.

The compressed gas industry monitored performance of their

cylinder fleets and concluded that the ``temporary'' over-filling

procedure could safely become a permanent regulation. However, CGA

decided to recommend certain controls to justify permanent

continuation of this change which effected the design safety factor.

Those controls are now contained in CFR Title 49, clause 173.302 (c)

entitled ``Special filling limits for Specification 3A, 3AA, 3AX,

3AAX and 3T cylinders''.

The technical rationale for those controls was: * * *

(1) ``That such cylinders are equipped with frangible disc

safety relief devices (without fusible metal backing) having a

bursting pressure not exceeding the minimum prescribed test

pressure.''

Rationale: This was to guarantee that cylinder pressure from any

source could never reach the cylinder design burst pressure.

Therefore, lowering the ratio of service pressure to rupture

pressure, was meaningless because the cylinders would be equipped

with a ``rupture port'' which would vent the gas pressure at a pre-

determined pressure and prevent the cylinder from ever reaching its

``burst'' pressure. * * *

(2) ``That the elastic expansion shall have been determined at

the time of the last test or retest by the water jacket method.''

Rationale: In the 1930s and 1940s the CGA had developed and

refined the water jacket test method, and developed the mathematical

relationship of wall stresses as measured by the elastic expansion

of individual cylinder designs. The average wall stress as

determined by elastic expansion measured by the water jacket

hydrostatic test was limited to a specified stress less than the

permitted maximum design stress. For example, 3AA design cylinders

were to be rejected if the elastic expansion exceeded a value

equivalent to the strain developed at an average wall stress of

67,000 psi; whereas, the design wall stress limit in 178.37-10(b) is

70,000 psi. This 4% decrease in wall stress was selected because

elastic expansion measures the average effective wall thickness and

not the minimum. At the same time it was concluded that a small

increase (i.e., 4%) in the stress at isolated areas of a cylinder

could be safely tolerated to allow for localized damage or thinning;

and a ``Maximum wall stress limitation'' was set; e.g., 73,000 psi

for 3AA design cylinders. This procedure of elastic expansion

control was developed to further justify the permanent use of the

``10% overfill'' by guaranteeing that such cylinders would be

controlled by limiting the loss of wall thickness so that the stress

at service pressure would be below the yield point of the cylinder

steel. * * *

(3) ``That either the average wall stress or the maximum wall

stress shall not exceed the wall stress limitations shown in the

following table.''

Rationale: Wall stress limitations for both average wall and

isolated spots were developed for each ``class of steel'' used for

ICC 3, DOT 3A, and DOT 3AA cylinder designs. (Much later DOT-3T was

added.) These limits were selected from known physical properties of

these steel classes; and were set to assure that stress at operation

pressures were: (1) well below yield point and (2) that an adequate

burst pressure to service pressure ratio was obtained. This clause

amplifies the preceding clause 2.

(4) ``That an external and internal visual examination made the

time of test or retest shows the cylinder to be free from excessive

corrosion, pitting, or dangerous defects.''

Rationale: The body of data and service experience available

within the CGA had proven that the design criterion for DOT high

pressure cylinders was eminently safe; especially as regards cycle

life and rupture in service. The only cause of cyclic or tensile

rupture would be damage inflicted during manufacture or service.

Thus, the visual inspection before and during use was considered to

be an essential safety measure, which continues to be true today.

(5) ``That a plus sign (+) be added following the test date

marking on the cylinder to indicate compliance with paragraphs (c)

(2), (3) and (4) of this section.''

Rationale: This was to force both the cylinder manufacturer and

user to take a physical act to signify their guarantee of compliance

with the control methods. This also was an easily discerned mark

that permitted personnel to identify which cylinders were

satisfactory, safe and qualified for charging to the ``10%

overfill''.

B. Wall Stress and Safety Factors of Series 3 DOT Cylinders

The most common high pressure cylinder in use in 1942 was the

ICC-3A-2015 with size of 9'' O.D. x 51'' long, rated at 220 cubic

feet oxygen capacity. This cylinder made of normalized intermediate

manganese steel had an ultimate tensile strength of about 95,000 psi

and had excellent ductility and good charpy impact strength at

-50 deg.F. to assure safe fracture performance. The design stress at

test pressure was 49,500 psi which with the 5/3 test pressure ratio

allows a stress of 29,600 psi at 2015 psi service pressure. The

yield point was about 69,000 psi (about 0.73 x U.T.S.). Thus the

service stress was about 50% of yield stress, which level assured a

long (virtually infinite) cycle life. The burst stress to service

stress ratio (safety factor) was about 3.2 (95,000

29,600).* * *

[[Page 58463]]

This ratio of operating stress compared to ultimate strength was

obviously a conservative design. The conservatism is more obvious in

view of the fact that the cylinders were seamless, forged, high

quality steel pressure vessels which have no stress concentration

points in the longitudinal plane of major stress. Furthermore, they

were used in non-corrosive gas service and have no source to

increase the contained pressure during use except by the small

fluctuations in ambient temperature or a fire. The cylinders are

also subjected to periodic requalification. In view of these facts/

data and the excellent service record, the decision was made in 1942

to allow stress to increase about 32,600 psi at service pressure for

the ``10% overfill''. This equates to a working stress to burst

strength ratio of 2.9 (95,000 32,600).

Thus the ``10% overfill'' was considered technically appropriate

and eminently safe as a way to increase the oxygen carrying capacity

from 220 CF to 244 CF. These cylinders have continued in service for

over 50 years with a perfect safety record as regards cyclic or

pressure rupture in service. The same effective stress at test

pressure can be achieved by testing either at 5/3 of 2015 or 3/2 of

2215. These pressures are 3358 and 3323 which stresses the wall to

49,350 and 48,720 psi respectively. This 1.2% difference in test

pressure stress would be inconsequential with respect to cylinder

safety. Therefore, the test pressure in the DOT 3A, 3AA, and 3T

specifications can safely be changed to 3/2 instead of 5/3 service

pressure. The following paragraph describes graphic presentation of

the situation with intermediate manganese normalized and chrome-moly

quenched and tempered, which represents virtually 100% of the 3A and

3AA cylinders in the U.S. * * *

It is proposed to write all the ``10% overfill'' into the design

conditions for DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3F (new) and 3T. This can be

accomplished by merely changing the required test pressure from 5/3

x service pressure to 3/2 x service pressure. For all intents and

purposes, the cylinders would be exactly the same as discussed

above. * * *

III. Conclusions

1. DOT 3A and 3AA cylinders have been in use since 1942 (54

years) with a ratio of test pressure to service pressure of 3/2. At

time of manufacture or retest, the cylinders are tested at 5/3 x

service pressure; but the service pressure is increased by 10% for

filling.

2. The 10% overfill pressure times 3/2 results in a wall stress

at test pressure only 1% less than the requirement to test at 5/3

times marked service pressure.

3. The 3/2 test pressure would result in a calculated minimum

wall of barely 0.001 inch less for a current cylinder with a 0.250

wall minimum.

4. The tiny decrease in wall thickness and effect of 1% lower

stress at test pressure would have no effect in overall cylinder

safety.

5. The service record since 1942 (54 years) has been perfect as

regards rupture under gas pressure and cyclic fatigue

characteristic. The change to 3/2 test versus 5/3 does not change

any measurable characteristic which would effect these failure

modes.

6. The ASME Code uses a 3/2 test pressure to working pressure

ratio.

7. Europe (18 countries) uses the 3/2 test to service pressure

ratio.

IV. Recommendation

The minimum prescribed test pressure shall be 3/2 times the

marked service pressure for all cylinders with a marked service of

500 psi or greater for all Series 3 steel cylinders. This should

also be considered for cylinders made of nickel, aluminum or

stainless steel.

In considering the issue of cylinder filling limits, RSPA also

reviewed technical information supplied by cylinder manufacturers and

by holders of exemptions that authorize either a test pressure of 3/2

times service pressure or 10% overfill for materials not currently

specified in 49 CFR 173.302(c), the hazardous materials information

system data base for incidents involving ``+'' marked cylinders, and

the work currently being done by the ISO and the United Nations Group

of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. After reviewing all the

available information, RSPA has concluded that from a transportation

safety perspective, there is no technical reason or safety experience

which would prohibit increasing the cylinder filling limits for

seamless cylinders to those comparable to the levels currently

authorized in 49 CFR 173.302(c). Therefore, RSPA has accepted the CGA

proposal to increase the filling limits for new cylinders, in

principle, but has chosen to limit the proposal for increased filling

limits to metric-marked DOT Specification cylinders. Additionally, RSPA

has not changed the requirements in 49 CFR 173.302(c) for the current

DOT specification cylinders, but has moved them to proposed

Sec. 173.302a(b).

With regards to existing cylinders, RSPA is considering a process

for accepting certain DOT specification cylinders as meeting the new

metric specifications, but is still considering various conversion

criteria. RSPA solicits comments from interested persons as to the

interest and feasibility of developing such a conversion program and,

if feasible, specific criteria for requalifying and conversion of

existing cylinders.

C. Specification Markings on Metric-marked Cylinders

In the CGA submission to RSPA, it was requested that cylinders be

marked in bar rather than psig. Bar is an internationally accepted

metric unit for pressure in the compressed gas industry. This change

would help make marking DOT specification cylinders consistent with the

practice in most European countries which are currently marking

cylinders with the test pressure shown in bar.

While considering this request, RSPA reviewed its current marking

requirements as well as two draft documents on the subject of cylinder

marking being considered by the ISO and the CEN. The documents are ISO/

DIS 13769, ``Gas cylinders--Stamp marking,'' and CEN Standard EN 1089-

1, ``Transportable gas cylinders--Gas cylinder identification--Part 1:

Stampmarking.''

Based upon this review, RSPA proposes to change the way DOT

specification cylinders are marked. The new marking scheme will change

the number and sequence of marks required to be placed on DOT

specification cylinders by manufacturers and is consistent with the

sequence being proposed by both ISO and CEN. However, RSPA does not

proposed to require all of the cylinder marks contained in either the

ISO or CEN documents. The proposed marking scheme will also make it

easier to identify those cylinders manufactured to the proposed

specifications. Additionally, the marking scheme is similar to the type

of marking scheme contained in the United Nations Recommendations for

the Transport of Dangerous Good for non-bulk packagings and

intermediate bulk containers.

The proposed marking sequence, with each element separated by a

slash mark, is as follows:

DOT Specification

Country of origin

Manufacturer's identification

Serial number

Stamp for non-destructive testing (if applicable)

Minimum wall thickness

Water capacity (liters)

Test pressure (bar)

Identification of alloy

Tare weight (kg)

Identification of inspection agency

Test date

REE (if applicable)

The most significant change is the marking of the new specification

cylinders with test pressure instead of service pressure. DOT

specification cylinders have always been designed to test pressure

rather than service pressure. Specifically, the stress formulas used to

determine the minimum wall thickness of DOT specification cylinders are

calculated at the minimum test pressure.

[[Page 58464]]

Additionally, as currently authorized in 49 CFR 173.302(c), many

cylinders used to transport compressed gases which are not liquefied,

dissolved, toxic or flammable are filled to a pressure 10% in excess of

their marked service pressure and 49 CFR 173.304(f) specifies, with

limited exceptions, that the pressure in the container at 130 deg.F

shall not exceed 5/4 times the marked service pressure. While marking

the test pressure rather than the service pressure will require the

training of persons who fill cylinders, it should not have any adverse

safety effects since inadvertently filling a cylinder to the marked

test pressure, in bar, would result in the cylinder being filled to a

lower pressure than the currently marked service pressure in psig.

Further, most cylinders are filled by a person who uses a filling table

that shows the values already adjusted for changes in temperature and

elevation. RSPA envisions that cylinders marked with test pressure will

also be filled by using filling tables.

III. Independent Inspection--New DOT Specification Cylinders

A DOT specification cylinder is, and has been for the past sixty

years, a widely recognized standard for the safe transportation of

compressed gases. This wide acceptance has resulted in significant

economic benefit to domestic industry far beyond the value of the

cylinders sold internationally. Market demand for gases and equipment

has increased as a direct result of the reputation of the DOT cylinder

for strength, durability and quality.

Since the early 1900's, cylinders manufactured under DOT's ``high

pressure'' specifications have required independent inspection,

originally referred to as ``disinterested inspection.'' Occasionally,

RSPA receives complaints from companies about costs of independent

inspection or claims that the companies' employees are as knowledgeable

and qualified, if not more so, as the independent inspector. However,

RSPA's Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement, through its

compliance inspection program, has found a higher level of compliance

with the regulations when inspection and certification functions are

carried out by an Independent Inspection Agency (IIA) instead of by an

employee of the manufacturing company. In order for DOT specification

cylinders to be acceptable for service in most foreign countries,

cylinders must be certified through an inspection process which is not

controlled by the cylinder manufacturer. Since 1977, all DOT

specification cylinders manufactured outside the United States under

the RSPA foreign cylinder approvals program are required to be

inspected and certified by an IIA.

In order to maintain the high level of safety established over the

past 100 years, to maintain the acceptability of DOT specification

cylinders worldwide, and to facilitate the harmonization between

domestic and foreign cylinder specifications, RSPA is proposing that

all cylinders manufactured or rebuilt to the new DOT metric-marked

cylinder specifications be subject to inspection by an IIA. In effect,

this would continue the current DOT inspection requirements for

seamless cylinders and extend the practice to welded cylinders.

IV. DOT Approval of Cylinder Requalifiers

RSPA proposes that any person who requalifies a DOT specification

cylinder must be approved by the Associate Administrator prior to

performing any requalification function that requires an inspection or

retest date to be marked on the cylinder. The affected functions

include performance of a visual inspection, pressure test, ultrasonic

thickness test, repair, or the rebuilding of cylinders. This proposal

will enhance the accountability of the cylinder requalification

process.

Currently, Sec. 173.34(e)(13) permits a cylinder used exclusively

for certain liquefied gases to be requalified for use by performing an

external visual inspection and marking the cylinder with the test date

and an ``E''. The ``E'' indicates that the cylinder was requalified by

external visual inspection in accordance with CGA Pamphlet C-6 rather

than by a hydrostatic test. A person who performs only external visual

inspections is not required to obtain an approval from, or register

with, the Associate Administrator. Although current Sec. 173.34(e)(13)

requires these persons to maintain records, RSPA does not know who or

how many persons requalify and mark cylinders with an inspection date

and an ``E'', or the locations of their places of business. Also, RSPA

does not know whether these persons have the knowledge and skills

necessary to perform the required functions, including use of required

inspection standards.

RSPA inspectors have frequently observed DOT specification

cylinders, primarily in liquefied petroleum gas service, that bear

markings representing that they were requalified for use. The markings

reflected dates of recent requalification by external visual

inspection. One cylinder, marked with the letter ``E'' and the date ``6

98,'' was examined by RSPA personnel on June 19, 1998, and found to be

rusted to an extent that there is no doubt that the rust formed long

before the marked inspection date. Considering the amount of

undisturbed rust on the cylinder, it was apparent that the person

requalifying the cylinder did not properly prepare it for inspection by

first completely removing all rust from the exterior surface of the

cylinder, as required by paragraph 3.1 of CGA Pamphlet C-6, which was

developed by the compressed gas industry for adoption by reference as

Federal regulations.

In reviewing the approach for resolving this issue, RSPA considered

five options:

(1) Continue the current provision that allows persons who are not

known to RSPA to requalify cylinders by performing visual inspections;

(2) Adopt a registration program that would require persons who

perform visual requalification to be registered with RSPA and to mark

their requalifier identification numbers (RIN) on the cylinders they

inspect;

(3) Adopt an approvals program requiring that persons performing

requalifications of cylinders by visual inspection be approved by RSPA

upon written application containing statements regarding their

qualifications;

(4) Adopt an approvals program that would require persons

performing visual requalifications to be reviewed by an independent

inspection agency; and

(5) Discontinue visual requalification of cylinders, thereby

requiring all affected cylinders to be hydrostatically retested.

RSPA selected option 3 for this NPRM because it will not impose the

burden and added cost of employing an independent inspection agency

while ensuring the accountability of a person performing visual

requalifications and providing RSPA the authority to revoke or suspend

the person's approval for demonstrated non-compliance with the

requalification requirements. Also, by requiring a certification that

an applicant has the ability to perform requalifications, RSPA believes

each applicant's awareness of the importance of compliance will be

heightened. RSPA solicits comments on these options and others that

RSPA may not have considered.

V. Requalification Markings

RSPA proposes to amend Sec. 171.2(d) to prohibit the

misrepresentation of a requalification identification number (RIN)

marking. Over the years, through its compliance program, RSPA has been

[[Page 58465]]

in contact with dozens of individuals who did not perform the required

hydrostatic tests, but stamped the cylinders as though each cylinder

had passed the inspections and tests. The steel stamps used to mark the

cylinders are readily available, low-cost and simple to use. RSPA

believes that these and other factors (e.g., the high cost of

purchasing and maintaining hydrostatic test equipment when compared to

the mere cost of obtaining a set of steel stamps) provide an economic

inducement for some individuals to engage in fraudulent activities.

Based on recent enforcement data, this safety problem appears to be

more widespread than RSPA originally thought. RSPA is concerned about

the number of cylinders that are fraudulently stamped and then are used

to transport hazardous materials in commerce. These cylinders, whose

structural integrity has not been verified, pose substantial risks to

health, safety and property. When RSPA discovers these situations, RSPA

publishes a safety alert notice (see Notice No. 97-2, 62 FR 19651;

Notice No. 97-3, 62 FR 24548) and, where appropriate, refers the matter

to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution (see

United States v. American Oxygen Company, et al., Docket No. 97-533

(D.N.M.)).

RSPA is also soliciting comments on the issue of what future method

or methods should be used to mark DOT specification cylinders during

the requalification process. Currently, after a cylinder meets the

requalification standards (e.g., passes a hydrostatic test, internal

and external visual examinations, etc.), the requalifier stamps the

month and year of the test and its RIN on the cylinder. This marking is

normally accomplished with steel stamps (Note: currently under an

exemption certain fiber-wrapped cylinders may be marked with labels.).

Through this rulemaking, RSPA is evaluating the merits of new marking

methods for DOT specification cylinders following the requalification

process.

RSPA is considering incorporating a number of marking options

(e.g., labeling, marking with a laser, replacing the RIN with a symbol

that is difficult to duplicate, etc.). RSPA is requesting comments from

the public as to the feasibility, costs and benefits of alternatives to

the metal stamping method and whether the public believes there is

justification for RSPA adopting an alternative method.

VI. Toxic Gases

Division 2.3 and 6.1, Hazard Zone A and B toxic inhalation hazard

(TIH) materials present a substantial risk to the public, transport

workers and emergency responders even when small quantities are

released. For smaller cylinders, shifting freight and dropping are

major sources of package damage and releases of hazardous materials.

Cylinders are sometimes dropped in handling, resulting in valve damage

or cylinder punctures. In a study of Hazardous Materials Information

System (HMIS) reports for the past 10 years, RSPA found that over 30%

of all reported cylinder incidents involved valve damage. Valve damage

occurs when valves are inadequately protected by outer packagings or

valve protection devices. Punctures most commonly occur when a cylinder

is impacted by handling equipment or other cargo or is dropped upon

other cargo or handling equipment. To reduce the probability that a

handling incident may result in the release of a TIH material, RSPA

proposes to expand the current drop test requirement for cylinders

containing TIH materials to include Hazard Zone B materials and a

performance test for cylinder puncture for TIH materials in Hazard

Zones A and B. These proposed performance tests apply to bare cylinders

and cylinders packed in strong outside packagings.

The performance test for puncture is based upon dropping a cylinder

seven feet; the same height used in the drop test for cylinder valve

protection. The seven-foot drop height represents the typical distance

that an industrial gas cylinder would encounter if it fell from a

truck. RSPA chose an angle iron (2 inch by 2 inch by 0.25 inch thick)

as a typical penetrator. The major parameters controlling cylinder

penetration are cylinder material, wall thickness, drop height and the

cylinder's gross weight. For consistency, RSPA proposes the cylinder

weight be the water-filled weight. To represent in-service stress

conditions, the proposed test is performed on the filled cylinder

charged to service pressure for nonmetric-marked cylinders and 67% of

test pressure for metric-marked cylinders.

The puncture-performance test would be required for metric-marked

and nonmetric-marked cylinders. To facilitate implementation of this

requirement for nonmetric-marked cylinders, RSPA is proposing a two-

year implementation period. RSPA also proposes a table showing

threshold values of wall thickness for cylinders of a particular

specification, material, and water-filled weight range. Cylinders

meeting the specified criteria with a minimum side wall thickness equal

to or greater than the value specified in the table would qualify under

current Sec. 173.40(d)(1) without puncture testing. To minimize the

testing burden, RSPA plans to perform puncture testing to develop

initial values for the table. RSPA is requesting that cylinder

manufacturers and shippers assist RSPA in developing this table. RSPA

is also soliciting comments on whether welded cylinders and cylinders

with wall thickness of 2.0 mm or less are used for the transportation

of Division 2.3 and 6.1 Hazard Zone B, C, and D materials. RSPA will

use this information to further develop the puncture testing threshold

table. When sufficient data is available, RSPA would consider the

development of a graph or calculation as a more practical means to

depict a minimum thickness threshold for puncture resistance.

VII. Discontinuation of Certain Cylinder Specifications

RSPA proposes to discontinue the use of the following DOT cylinder

specifications: 3C, 3D, 4, 4A, 4B240X, 4B240FLW, 4C, 9, 25, 26, 33, 38,

40 and 41. RSPA believes that these cylinders are obsolete and no

longer in general use. Authorization to manufacture these cylinders was

removed from the regulations on September 11, 1980 (45 FR 59887).

Comments are solicited from persons who may be using these cylinders.

If the proposals contained in this NPRM lead to publication of a

final rule, RSPA proposes to provide a transition period of five years

from the effective date of the final rule for the continued

construction of cylinders made to the following DOT specifications: 3A,

3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3AL, 3B, 3T, 3BN, 4B, 4BA, 4BW, 4B240ET, and 4E. RSPA

believes a five-year transition period for new construction of

cylinders conforming to these specifications will reduce the burdens

incurred by persons affected by this proposal. Cylinders made to these

specifications would be authorized for continued use as long as they

meet standards for periodic requalification. Voluntary compliance with

the new metric or revised requirements would be authorized 90 days

following publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

VIII. Pressure Relief Device (PRD) Systems

In a previous rulemaking (see, Docket No. HM-220A, 61 FR 26750,

26756; May 28, 1996), RSPA proposed voluntary compliance with CGA

Pamphlet S-1.1, paragraph 9.1.1.1, which would require verification

that the PRDs operate properly. RSPA made this proposal based on the

view that

[[Page 58466]]

over time certain components within a PRD will cease to function as

designed. Thus, RSPA proposed adopting paragraph 9.1.1.1 which would

have required that the operation of the PRD be verified. A number of

commenters opposed this proposal citing its cost and the lack of

incident data supporting adoption of this requirement. Based on the

need to gather more data and review the cost estimates submitted, RSPA

withdrew the proposal and agreed to consider the proposal in a future

rulemaking. RSPA continues to evaluate adopting this industry standard.

Since publication of HM-220A final rule, gas industry

representatives have expressed the view that over time most polymers,

used as seats in PRDs, vulcanize. Vulcanization prevents the devices

from functioning as designed. RSPA solicits information on the

following:

1. Data and comments on the cost, effectiveness and need for

adopting paragraph 9.1.1.1, in CGA Pamphlet S-1.1.

2. Additional incident data from State and local officials

concerning incidents that involved compressed gas cylinders which may

not have been reported to RSPA because the incident did not involve a

hazardous materials carrier or did not meet the reporting criteria

specified in 49 CFR Sec. 171.16.

3. Comments on the need to require PRD manufacturers to certify a

performance range and period for their devices. Thus, a PRD would have

to perform within specific limits throughout a specific life.

Public comments that address these issues will be considered in a

future rulemaking.

IX. Related Rulemakings, Petitions for Rulemaking, and Safety

Recommendations

Docket HM-176A (RIN 2131-AB51). RSPA proposes to amend Sec. 178.46

to remove aluminum alloy 6351-T6 as an authorized material for the

manufacture of DOT 3AL seamless cylinders. In January 1990, at RSPA's

urging, manufacturers of DOT 3AL cylinders voluntarily discontinued the

use of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 because cylinders made of this alloy are

susceptible to cracks that could result in leaks or ruptures.

On July 10, 1987, RSPA published in the Federal Register a safety

advisory and advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (Docket No.

HM-176-A; 52 FR 26027) to inform all persons possessing DOT 3AL (49 CFR

178.46) cylinders, made of aluminum alloy 6351 manufactured by Luxfer

USA Limited, that cracks had developed during service which

occasionally resulted in leakage and loss of cylinder contents. In

addition to the safety advisory, the notice identified those cylinders

at risk, suggested steps that users should take to minimize risks, and

requested industries' comments concerning the extent of the problem and

their suggestions on corrective measures.

RSPA received 31 comments from manufacturers, distributors, and

industrial users of aluminum alloy cylinders. Some commenters submitted

findings of studies for cylinders manufactured with aluminum alloy

6351, including sustained load cracking (SLC) behavior testing. The

majority of the comments and findings concluded that DOT 3AL cylinders

made from aluminum alloy 6351, including cylinders authorized under

exemption DOT-E 7235, pose a greater probability of failure than other

cylinders. Further, information available to RSPA reveals that it is

difficult to detect cracks in these cylinders which adds to the risks.

RSPA published several notices to alert persons to the safety risk

associated with cylinders manufactured to the DOT 3AL specification or

under exemption DOT E-7235 and containing alloy 6351 (50 FR 32944,

August 15, 1985; 58 FR 15895, March 24, 1993, 59 FR 38028, July 26,

1994). Thus, there is sufficient data which demonstrates that this

alloy is not suitable for the manufacture of compressed gas cylinders

and that it should be removed as an authorized construction material.

Petitions for rulemaking. RSPA has received numerous petitions for

rulemaking requesting changes to the cylinder specifications and

related commodity and requalification requirements. These petitions

were held in abeyance and were considered in the development of this

NPRM. Most of the requested changes are included in this NPRM. Because

of the proposals in this NPRM to establish four new cylinder

specifications and to discontinue construction of cylinders to certain

current specifications, some of the requests for changes to the current

regulations are no longer warranted. A summary of the petitions, with

RSPA's comment shown in brackets, are as follows:

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

Petition No. Request

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

0095................................... Consolidate the DOT 3-series specifications to permit unified

specifications. Filed by CGA [Proposed in Secs. 178.69-178.73 for

metric-marked cylinders].

0154................................... Permit filling of non-toxic, nonliquefied flammable gases to 110% of

the cylinder's marked service pressure (including hydrogen). Filed by

CGA [Proposed in Sec. 173.302b for metric-marked cylinders].

0312................................... Align rejection criteria of welded cylinder specifications to permit

testing of second specimen from same lot if first specimen fails.

Filed by the Canadian Transport Commission [Proposed in Sec. 178.81

for metric-marked cylinders].

0324................................... (Request same as P-0312). Filed by the Association of American

Railroads.

0457................................... Revise cylinder repair and rebuilding requirements. Filed by CGA

[Proposed in Sec. 180.211 for all cylinders].

0553................................... Amend Part 178 to change cylinder lot size in each specification. Filed

by CGA [Proposed in Sec. 178.70 for seamless metric-marked cylinders

and in Sec. 178.81 for metric-marked welded cylinders].

0652................................... Revise Sec. 173.302(c)(3) table to add a fifth class of steel for DOT

3 series cylinder tubes. Filed by CGA [Proposed in Sec. 178.70 for

metric-marked cylinders].

0752................................... Amend the table in 178.37-5(a), by adding a column titled ``Authorized

Chemical analysis (designation 10B30).'' Filed by Pressed Steel Tank.

(See DOT E 8311) [Proposed in Sec. 178.70 for metric-marked

cylinders].

0823................................... Incorporate by reference CGA Pamphlets C-1 and C-5. (See also P-981).

Filed by CGA [Incorporated by reference in Sec. 171.7].

0866................................... Revise required sequence for display of specification markings on

seamless aluminum cylinders and allow use of new marking techniques

[Proposed in Sec. 178.69 for metric-marked cylinders].

0953................................... Establish a new specification for manufacture of new welded, stainless

steel cylinders. (See E-4884). Filed by CGA [Proposed in Sec. 178.81

DOT 4M specification].

1040................................... Revise Sec. 173.304(c) and (d)(4) to expand specific gravities for

LPG, at 42% filling density, from 0.504-510 to 0.497-0.510. Filed by

the National Propane Gas Association [Proposed in Sec. 173.304b for

metric-marked cylinders].

1071................................... Permit use of DOT 3AL cylinders for any gas or gas mixture that is

compatible with aluminum. Filed by CGA [Proposed greater use DOT 3ALM

cylinders in Sec. 173.302b].

[[Page 58467]]

1082................................... Revise 173.302(f) to remove 5/6 filling pressure limitation applicable

to DOT 3AL cylinders. Filed by CGA [Proposed in Sec. 173.301a for DOT

3AL cylinders and in Sec. 173.301b for DOT 3ALM cylinders].

1087................................... Establish a new specification for seamless steel cylinders having a

design stress of not more than 90,500 psi and a water capacity of not

more than 150 pounds. (E-9001, 9370, 10047). Filed by CGA [Included in

proposed new DOT 3FM specification in Sec. 178.73].

1090................................... Require that a cylinder requalified by visual inspection must be marked

with the retester's identification number. Filed by CGA [Proposed in

Sec. 180.213].

1189................................... Establish a new low pressure welded stainless steel cylinder

specification. Filed by CGA. Includes P-0953 [Proposed in Sec. 178.81

DOT 4M specification].

1229................................... Revise Secs. 178.36 thru 178.60 to specify procedures for conducting

tensile test. Filed by CGA [Proposed in Sec. 178.69 for metric-marked

cylinders].

1233................................... Permit nondestructive requalification testing of compressed natural gas

(CNG) cylinders. Filed by FIBA [Proposed in Secs. 178.69, 180.207 and

180.209 for metric-marked cylinders and certain nonmetric-marked

cylinders].

1263................................... Revise Sec. 173.34(e)(18) to permit the use of a permanent, non-

transferrable label for retest and inspection markings on fire

extinguishers. Filed by Amerex [Proposed in 180.213].

1277................................... Revise Sec. 173.34(i)(4) to except DOT 4BW cylinders from heat

treatment after replacement of nonpressure attachments. Filed by

Manchester [Proposed in Sec. 180.211 subject to certain conditions].

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

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Recommendations.

I-92-001

Recommends that RSPA require attachments to all DOT authorized

hazardous materials packagings be designed to minimize the risk of

puncturing other hazardous materials packagings during an accident

situation. (Proposed in Sec. 173.301(m))

I-90-008

Recommends that RSPA require hazardous material cargo to be secured

in transportation with adequate restraint systems to prevent ejection

of cargo from vehicles. (Proposed in Sec. 177.840)

I-90-009

Recommends that RSPA require independent inspection of new and

reconditioned low pressure cylinders that are consistent with present

independent inspection requirements for high pressure cylinders

[Proposed for 4M cylinders in Sec. 178.69.]

X. Cross Reference Table

The following table lists the proposed paragraphs or sections and,

where applicable, the corresponding paragraph or section contained in

the current HMR. In some cases, the cross references are to provisions

which are similar to, but not identical with current provisions.

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

New section Old section

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

107.801

107.803(a)................................ 173.300a(a).

(b)..................................... 173.300a, 173.34(e)(2)(ii)

third sentence.

(c) intro............................... 173.300a(b).

(c)(1).................................. (b)(2).

(c)(2).................................. (b)(3).

(c)(3).................................. (b)(6).

(c)(4).................................. (b)(7).

(c)(5).................................. (a).

(c)(6)

(c)(7)

(d)..................................... (c), (i).

107.805(a)................................ 173.34(e)(2)(ii).

(b)..................................... (e)(2)(ii).

(c)..................................... (e)(2)(ii)(A).

(d)..................................... (e)(2)(ii)(B).

(e)..................................... (e)(2)(ii)(B).

(f)

107.807(a)................................ 173.300b.

(b)..................................... (b).

(c)..................................... (g).

173.301(a)

(a)(1).................................. 173.301(h).

(a)(2).................................. 173.34(e)(1).

(a)(3).................................. (e)(17).

(a)(4).................................. (a)(2).

(a)(5).................................. (e)(1)(ii).

(a)(6).................................. 173.301(k).

(a)(7)

(a)(8)

(a)(9)

(a)(10)................................. 173.301(k).

(b)..................................... 173.34(c).

(c)..................................... 173.301(a).

(d)..................................... (b).

(e)..................................... 173.34(c).

(f)..................................... 173.301(d).

(g) intro

(g)(1) thru (g) (3)..................... 173.301(g)(1) thru (g)(3).

(h)..................................... (g).

(i)

(j)..................................... (i).

(k)

(l)..................................... (j).

(m)

173.301a(a)............................... 173.301(e).

(b)..................................... (e)(1).

(c)..................................... (e)(2).

(d)..................................... (f) .

(e)..................................... 173.34(b).

173.301b

173.302(a)................................ 173.302(a)(4), (a)(5)(i)

thru (iii).

(b)..................................... 173.302(a)(4), (a)(5)(i)

thru (iii).

(c)..................................... 173.301(e).

(d)..................................... 173.301(f).

173.302a(a) intro......................... 173.302(a).

(a)(1).................................. (a)(1).

(a)(2).................................. (a)(2).

(a)(3).................................. (a)(4).

(a)(4).................................. (a)(3).

(a)(5).................................. (a)(4) - (5).

(b)..................................... (c).

(c)..................................... (f).

(d)..................................... (f).

(e)..................................... (d).

173.302b

173.304(a)................................ 173.304(a) intro, (a)(1).

(a)(1).................................. (a)(4).

(a)(2)

(a)(3)

(b)..................................... (b).

(c)..................................... (a) intro.

(d)..................................... (e).

(e)..................................... (f).

173.304a(a)............................... 173.304(a).

(c)..................................... (c).

(d)..................................... (d) .

(e)..................................... (h).

173.304b

173.315(p)................................ 173.301(d)(5).

180.201

180.203

180.205(a)

(b)..................................... 173.34 (e)(2).

(c) intro............................... (e)(1).

(c)(1).................................. (e)(1).

(c)(2)

(c)(3).................................. (c)(3).

(c)(4)

(d)

(e)..................................... (e)(17).

(f)..................................... (e)(3).

(g)..................................... (e)(4).

(h)..................................... (e)(5).

(i)..................................... (e)(6).

180.207

180.209(a)................................ 173.34(e) intro.

(b)..................................... (e)(16).

(c)..................................... (e)(9).

(d)..................................... (e)(10).

(e)..................................... (e)(11).

(f)..................................... (e)(12).

(g)..................................... (e)(13).

(h)..................................... (e)(14).

(i)..................................... (e)(18).

(j)..................................... (e)(19).

(k)

180.211................................... 173.34(g), (i) through (l).

180.213................................... 173.34(c), (e)(7).

[[Page 58468]]

180.215................................... 173.34(e)(2)(v), (e)(8),

(e)(13).

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

XI. Summary of Regulatory Changes by Section

Part 107, Subpart I

Section 107.801-107.807

This new subpart would contain procedures whereby persons may seek

approval from the Associate Administrator to be a cylinder requalifer,

an independent inspection agency (IIA), or to have chemical tests or

analysis performed outside the United States for DOT specification

cylinders manufactured outside the United States. These requirements

are contained currently in Secs. 173.300a, 173.34(e) and 173.300b,

respectively. This new subpart would contain the specific requirements.

Current requirements in 49 CFR Subpart H of Part 107 would be

referenced for minimum content of an application, the RSPA office where

an application is to be filed, and the procedures that will be used to

process or terminate an application for approval.

The criteria permit the selection of any person or organization,

foreign as well as domestic, that is technically competent to perform

the prescribed functions and is free from undue influence by persons

involved with the fabrication, ownership or movement of the cylinders

that the applicant, if approved, would be called upon to evaluate and

certify. Under this proposal, RSPA would accept for transportation in

the United States foreign-made cylinders that are similar in

construction to the proposed DOT metric-marked cylinders. As part of

this policy, if the United States recognizes cylinders manufactured

outside the United States and approved by a third party inspector

approved by another government, then equal treatment is expected of

that government relative to cylinders manufactured in the United States

and approved by an IIA approved by DOT. Therefore, a foreign third-

party inspector, who certifies cylinders manufactured outside the

United States, must submit a statement from the competent authority of

the foreign government stating that similar authority is delegated to

manufacturers of metric-marked cylinders in the United States and that

no additional limitations are imposed.

Proposed Sec. 107.803 (current Sec. 173.300a) prescribes

application procedures for approval or renewal as an IIA. These

procedures, contained currently in Sec. 173.300a, would also permit an

IIA, upon approval by the Associate Administrator, to perform other

functions relating to the cylinder requalification requirements

prescribed in Part 180.

Proposed Sec. 107.805 (current Sec. 173.34(e)(2)) prescribes

application procedures for a person seeking an approval to perform

periodic cylinder requalifications. The procedures would be revised and

broadened to apply to any person who performs a function after which

the cylinder is required to be marked with a date as discussed in Part

IV of this preamble under the heading ``DOT approval of cylinder

requalifiers''. Because these provisions would be expanded to apply to

repairers and rebuilders, the terms ``retester'' and ``retester

identification number'' would be replaced with the terms

``requalifier'' and ``requalifier identification number,''

respectively.

Proposed Sec. 107.807 (current Sec. 173.300b) prescribes the

application procedures for issuance or renewal of an approval to

perform chemical analyses and tests outside the United States on DOT

specification cylinders manufactured outside the United States.

Part 171

Section 171.2

Paragraph (d)(3) would be amended to clarify that no one may mark a

requalifier identification number on a cylinder that has not been

requalified in accordance with the applicable requirements.

Section 171.7

This section would incorporate the latest editions of previously

approved CGA Pamphlets, incorporate certain additional ASTM and CGA

standards, and add references to certain publications of the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI).

Section 171.8

Definitions for ``metric-marked cylinder'' and ``nonmetric-marked

cylinder'' would be added.

Section 171.12

Paragraph (b)(15) would be revised to include references to

Sec. 171.12a(b)(13).

Section 171.12a

On August 18, 1998, RSPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

[Docket HM-215C; 63 FR 44312] which proposed to revise paragraph

(b)(13) to provide reciprocity for certain Canadian specification

cylinders to be transported within the United States. This HM-215C

proposed change is reprinted here for the benefit of readers.

Part 172

In the Sec. 172.101 Table, in column (8b) for the entries

``Cyanogen'', ``Germane'', and ``Iron Pentacarbonyl'' would be revised

to specify packaging authorization sections that are consistent with

their toxic properties.

Part 173

Section 173.34

The provisions in this section would be relocated to subpart I of

part 107, Sec. 173.301 and subpart B of part 180, as appropriate, and

Sec. 173.34 would be removed. All references to Sec. 173.34 in the HMR,

approximately 150 in number, would be removed and replaced with the

appropriate section reference.

Section 173.40

The requirements for toxic materials packaged in cylinders would be

revised to include an additional performance criteria for puncture

resistance. The requirements in Sec. 173.40 currently apply only to

materials in Hazard Zone A. All requirements except the controls on

closures would be expanded to Hazard Zone B materials. RSPA requests

comments on whether cylinders with Hazard Zone B materials should be

required to meet the same closure requirements required for Hazard Zone

A.

As discussed earlier in this preamble, DOT 3AL cylinders made of

aluminum alloy 6351-T6 are susceptible to sustained load cracking (SLC)

in the neck and shoulder area of the cylinder head and, therefore, may

leak in transportation. Leaks of Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH)

materials pose a significant threat to health and safety. At least two

major gas suppliers have voluntarily stopped using these cylinders in

TIH gas services. The proposed regulation will reduce the risk to

health and safety associated with TIH materials leaking through cracks

in cylinders. RSPA proposes that this regulation be imposed on the

effective date of this rule. After that date, cylinders made of 6351

alloy may not be filled and offered for transportation in TIH service.

Cylinders filled prior to that date may be offered for transportation

and transported to their ultimate destination and, when necessary,

cylinders containing unused gas may be returned to the person who

filled the cylinder.

Section 173.163

The requirements for nonmetric-marked cylinders containing hydrogen

fluoride would be amended to require ultrasonic examination as the only

authorized requalification method. This

[[Page 58469]]

proposal is based on the fact that the presence of moisture in a

cylinder containing hydrogen fluoride causes rapid corrosion of the

cylinder wall. Since removal of all moisture after hydrostatic testing

is very difficult, the current requirements authorize only the external

visual inspection in lieu of hydrostatic testing and internal visual

inspection. At the time the requirement was last amended, no other

alternative examination was available to reliably examine the cylinder

without introducing moisture into the cylinder. An ultrasonic

examination, to examine the internal sidewall for defects, can be

performed without introducing moisture to the cylinder. This section

also would be amended to include metric-marked cylinders for use in

hydrogen fluoride service.

Section 173.192

The title of this section would be revised to reflect that

requirements are applicable to Hazard Zone A gases. The restriction on

aluminum cylinders by highway and rail would be extended beyond arsine

and phosphine to include all Hazard Zone A gases. Paragraph (c) would

be amended to authorize alternative leakage tests having an equivalent

level of sensitivity as the current water bath leakage test, upon

written approval from the Associate Administrator. Currently without

exception, cylinders containing any amount of phosgene gas must be

subjected to a water bath leakage test prior to offering them for

transportation.

Section 173.198

An editorial change would be made to paragraph (a).

Section 173.226

Paragraph (a) would be revised to include only seamless

specification cylinders conforming to all requirements of Sec. 173.40.

Currently, Division 6.1, Hazard Zone A materials may be shipped in any

DOT specification cylinder except 8, 8AL and 39. RSPA believes that

this must be corrected in order to require these high hazard materials

to be transported in cylinders with a higher level of safety.

Section 173.227

Paragraph (a) would be revised to include only seamless and welded

specification cylinders conforming to the requirements of Sec. 173.40.

Section 173.228

Paragraph (a) would be amended to include metric-marked

specification cylinders and to require that cylinders used for bromine

pentafluoride and bromine trifluoride in Hazard Zones A and B materials

must conform to Sec. 173.40 as required for similar materials.

Sections 173.300a-173.300c

The provisions in these sections would be relocated to new Subpart

I of Part 107 and Secs. 173.300a, 173.300b and 173.300c would be

removed.

Sections 173.301-173.301b

Current Sec. 173.301 would be revised and proposed Secs. 173.301a

and 173.301b would be added. Section 173.301 would contain the general

shipper requirements for the use of specification cylinders that are

currently in Sec. 173.34 and the standard requirements for cylinders

that are currently in Sec. 173.301. These requirements include general

prefill requirements, maintenance and legibility of markings, PRD,

valve protection, manifolding of cylinders and the charging of foreign

cylinders. A derivation table showing the relocation of the

requirements appears in Part X of this preamble.

Certain other changes would be made to Sec. 173.301. The cargo tank

manifolding requirements that are currently in Sec. 173.301(d) would be

removed and placed with other cargo tank requirements in Sec. 173.315.

Proposed paragraph (a)(6) would prohibit the offering for

transportation and transportation in commerce of a filled cylinder

having a specified service life after its service life has expired.

This requirement will ensure cylinders that may be unsafe are removed

from service for transportation of hazardous materials.

Proposed paragraph (d) contains the general prohibition, that is

currently contained in paragraph (a), against filling a cylinder with

gases that are capable of combining chemically with each other or with

the cylinder material so as to endanger its serviceability. This

provision would be expanded to prohibit the use of DOT 3AL cylinders

made of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 for gases having pyrophoric properties.

Leaks of gases having pyrophoric properties, such as, silane, would

cause spontaneous flame and pose a significant threat to the health and

safety. A transition period of six months after the effective date of

the final rule would be provided for cylinders filled prior to the

specified date.

Proposed paragraph (f) contains PRD system and setting

requirements. The general purpose of a hazardous material packaging is

to prevent the unintentional release of a hazardous material under

normal conditions of transportation, including mishandling and minor

traffic accidents. Also, the packaging standards for cylinders are

designed to prevent failure of a cylinder from over pressurization,

particularly, when it retains substantial stored energy. Thus, a

balance must be set between competing interests for keeping a hazardous

material, particularly Division 2.1 and 2.3 gases and Division 2.2

gases with oxidizing properties, in a packaging and allowing such a

material to escape in order to prevent the packaging from rupturing.

Under current regulations, the type and setting of PRD systems are

established by CGA Pamphlet S-1.1. CGA Pamphlet S-1.1 allows a PRD

setting to be 75% to 100% of test pressure of the cylinder. Based on

RSPA's analysis of the currently authorized settings, a fully charged

nonmetric-marked DOT-3 series gas cylinder at 130 deg.F operating

temperature will likely release hazardous gases when the PRDs,

conforming to the authorized tolerances on device function, are set

below test pressure. RSPA believes this creates a serious threat to

safety by allowing an improper balance between keeping the hazardous

material in the package and preventing the cylinder from rupturing. In

contrast, RSPA does not believe this condition applies to DOT-4 series

cylinders because the ratio of test pressure to service pressure is 2:1

as compared to 1.67:1 for DOT-3 series cylinders.

To correct this condition, RSPA is proposing a PRD setting of 100%

of the marked test pressure for metric-marked and nonmetric-marked DOT-

3 series cylinders. To allow users sufficient time to change their

nonmetric-marked cylinders to meet the new PRD setting requirement,

RSPA is proposing that each cylinder be brought into compliance at the

first requalification of the cylinder after the effective date of the

final rule.

RSPA believes a setting of 100% of test pressure for a PRD is a

reasonable balance between keeping a gas in a cylinder and preventing a

cylinder from rupturing in the event of a fire or overfill. PRDs

designed to release at not less than test pressure will eliminate the

possibility of gas release through the relief device at a temperature

less than or equal to 54 deg.C (130 deg.F). At the same condition,

test pressure, the factor of safety for cylinder rupture is 1.6. As a

result of discussions with gas shippers, RSPA believes many major

shippers of DOT-3 series cylinders are currently setting PRDs at 90-

100% of test pressure for toxic and flammable gases. Because it is

common practice for many shippers of DOT-3 series cylinders to replace

the PRD at the time of a

[[Page 58470]]

cylinder's requalification, RSPA believes the proposal will result in

minimal incremental cost. For most gases, RSPA believes the increased

PRD setting will not significantly impact the performance of cylinders

in bonfire tests. RSPA requests the following:

1. Data on the performance of PRDs set at test pressure in bonfire

tests.

2. Comments on any gases or cylinders where a 100% of test pressure

setting could prevent a cylinder from passing a bonfire test.

3. Comments on the need to requalify PRDs in a bonfire test.

Proposed paragraph (h) would contain the cylinder valve protection

requirements that are currently in paragraph (g). These requirements

would be revised to require a performance-oriented approach to valve

assembly protection. A six foot drop test would be required to verify

that each cylinder valve (with or without protection assembly) has

sufficient strength to survive falls incidental to handling in

transportation. An acceptable drop test result would be that no leakage

occurs after the cylinder is dropped, although the cylinder may show

damage. A similar drop test is currently required for all non-bulk

performance-oriented packagings to ensure that the packages can

withstand normal conditions of transportation. RSPA believes that

cylinders should be held to at least the same level of performance as

drums and fiberboard boxes. A period of five years is proposed in

paragraph (h)(1)(i) to provide a smooth transition to meet this

performance requirement.

Proposed paragraph (k) would be added to permit foreign cylinders

to be imported into the United States and transported within a single

port area subject to certain conditions.

Proposed paragraph(m) would be added to prohibit cylinder

attachments with sharp features that may cause damage to other freight.

This new provision is in response to NTSB Recommendation I-92-001 with

respect to cylinders. Attachments for other hazardous material

packaging types will be addressed in a separate rulemaking action.

Proposed Sec. 173.301a would contain the current requirements

pertaining to the pressure in a nonmetric-marked cylinder at 70 deg.F

and 130 deg.F. It would also contain a grandfather provision that is

currently in Sec. 173.34(b).

Proposed Sec. 173.301b contains additional general requirements for

metric-marked cylinders used for nonliquefied (permanent) gases.

Definitions would be added for ``critical temperature,'' ``dissolved

gas,'' ``filling factor of liquefied compressed gas,'' ``high pressure

liquefied compressed gas,'' ``low pressure liquefied compressed gas,''

``permanent (non-liquefied compressed) gas,'' ``safety factor,'' and

``settled pressure.'' These proposed definitions, which are used in ISO

Standard 11622, will provide for harmonization with the international

standards.

Sections 173.302-173.302b

Current Sec. 173.302 would be revised and proposed Secs. 173.302a

and 173.302b would be added. Proposed Sec. 173.302 prescribes the

general requirements that would apply to filling a specification

cylinder with a nonliquefied (permanent) compressed gas.

Proposed 173.302a prescribes requirements for filling a nonmetric-

marked cylinder with a nonliquefied compressed gas, i.e., the current

requirements in Sec. 173.302. In addition, RSPA proposes to remove the

\5/6\ filling pressure limitation for DOT 3AL cylinders in carbon

monoxide service, in response to a CGA petition (P-1082). CGA furnished

information to support its conclusion that, although evidence shows

that carbon monoxide can cause stress corrosion cracking in steel

cylinders, there is no evidence that carbon monoxide causes corrosion

cracking or carbonyl formation in aluminum cylinders.

Proposed Sec. 173.302b prescribes requirements for filling a

metric-marked cylinder with permanent gas. Because a metric-marked

cylinder is stamped with the test pressure in bar, the fill pressure is

calculated from the marked test pressure. The charge pressure for a

metric-marked cylinder is \2/3\ of the test pressure for seamless DOT

3M, 3FM and 3ALM cylinders, and \1/2\ of the test pressure for welded

DOT 4M cylinders. The NPRM proposes a uniform standard which reduces

the possibility of overfilling and allows the gas industry to ship an

additional 1.5% gas. Because the NPRM proposes that the cylinder be

marked and charged in accordance with ISO Standard 11622, it would

facilitate shipments of hazardous material in DOT specification

cylinders internationally.

Section 173.304-173.304b

Current Sec. 173.304 would be revised and proposed Secs. 173.304a

and 173.304b would be added. Proposed Sec. 173.304 prescribes general

requirements that would apply to filling a specification cylinder with

a liquefied gas.

Proposed Sec. 173.304a prescribes specific requirements for filling

a nonmetric-marked cylinder with a liquefied gas, i.e., the

requirements that are currently in Sec. 173.304. Currently,

Sec. 173.304 limits the filling of a cylinder with a liquefied

compressed gas based on the maximum expected operating temperature (130

deg.F) and the minimum specific gravity of the liquid at 60 deg.F.

The maximum filling densities for many gases are prescribed in a table

that would be retained in the HMR in Sec. 173.304a for nonmetric-marked

cylinders.

The current regulation defines a liquefied compressed gas to be

partially liquid at an operating temperature of 20 deg.C (68 deg.F)

and authorizes a filling limit based on a wide range of critical

temperatures. Therefore, the safety factor derived from filling limits

is conservative for some gases and marginal for other gases. In

addition, the current regulations limit the internal volume of a DOT-39

specification cylinder to 75 cubic inches when used for liquefied

petroleum gases. This requirement is revised to apply to all liquefied

flammable gases and appears in proposed Sec. 173.304a(a)(3). In

proposed Sec. 173.304b for metric-marked cylinders, filling limits are

based on the maximum operating temperature and filling factor. Instead

of a maximum filling density table, the proposed filling limits are

based on a filling factor which is directly related to the critical

temperature of the liquefied compressed gas. The proposed filling

limits are applicable to all liquefied compressed gases. Under the

proposed filling limits, the filling factor is defined based on the

critical temperature and the operating condition of each individual

gas. Therefore, the proposal enhances the level of safety and allows

the gas industry to fill the cylinders with more product.

Section 173.334

This section would be amended to include metric-marked

specification cylinders.

Section 173.336

This section would be amended to include metric-marked

specification cylinders.

Section 173.337

This section would be amended to include metric-marked

specification cylinders.

Part 177

Sec. 177.840 Class 2 (Gases) Materials

RSPA proposes to revise paragraph (a)(1) to allow horizontal

loading of cylinders containing Class 2.2 materials. In addition, the

horizontal loading of Class 2.1 and Class 2.3 materials would be

permitted for cylinders designed so that the inlet to the PRD is

located in the

[[Page 58471]]

vapor space and provided that the cylinders are properly secured during

transportation.

This paragraph also would require the use of cylinder restraint

systems to reduce the likelihood of the cylinders being ejected from

the vehicle in event of an accident. This proposal is based on a NTSB

Recommendation I-90-008, that urges RSPA to require hazardous materials

packages to be secured with adequate cargo restraint systems to prevent

their ejection from the vehicle during transportation. NTSB made the

recommendation following an accident in Collier County, Florida that

involved a number of cylinders, containing a poisonous by inhalation

gas, being ejected from an overturned tractor-flatbed semitrailer.

Considering the wide variation in cylinder sizes, and the various types

of restraints that would be required, RSPA solicits information on

anticipated safety benefits and the costs of requiring the use of

restraint systems, particularly on small businesses.

Part 178

Section 178.46

As discussed in Part IX of this preamble, the tables in paragraph

(b)(4) would be revised to remove aluminum alloy 6351 as an authorized

material for the manufacture of DOT 3AL seamless cylinders. In

addition, in Table 1, several changes would be made to the chemical

composition limits for 6061 alloy for consistency with limits stated in

The Aluminum Association Standards and Data, 1993 edition. The Si

maximum that is currently stated as 0.80% would be revised to read

0.8%, the Fe maximum that is currently stated as 0.70% would be revised

to read 0.7%, the Mg minimum that is currently stated as 0.80% would be

revised to read 0.8%, and the Mg maximum that is currently stated as

1.20% would be revised to read 1.2%. Finally, Table 1 limits the

chemical composition of Pb (lead) and Bi(bismuth) to 0.01. RSPA

proposes to change these limits to 0.005.

Section 178.69

This new proposed section contains general design and manufacturing

requirements applicable to all metric-marked DOT specification

cylinders. This proposed section contains much of the same information

as the current Sec. 178.35, including compliance, inspection and

analyses, duties of inspector, PRDs, and markings; however, proposed

Sec. 178.69 is extended to address definitions, authorized material,

threads, and tests. Thus, Sec. 178.69 would simplify the regulations in

that all information common to metric-marked cylinders will be

centrally located, and will allow the simplification and streamlining

of the individual cylinder specifications proposed in Secs. 178.71,

178.72, 178.73 and 178.81.

Paragraph (b) will define common terms for clarity and consistency.

The addition of the new definition for ``volumetric expansion test''

will clarify RSPA's meaning of the many terms used by industry to

describe pressure testing.

Paragraph (c) specifies the requirements for inspection and

analyses. RSPA proposes that all DOT 4-series metric-marked cylinders

have inspection and analyses performed by an independent inspection

agency.

In paragraph (e), duties of the inspector, RSPA proposes a change

to allow the inspector to obtain a certified cast or heat analysis from

the cylinder manufacturer in addition to the material producer or

supplier, as needed. The current regulations require the inspector to

verify that the material of construction meets the requirements of the

applicable specification by either making a chemical analysis of each

heat of material; obtaining a certified chemical analysis from the

material manufacturer for each heat of material; or by making a check

analysis of a sample from each coil, sheet, or tube if an analysis is

not provided by the material manufacturer for each heat of material.

These alternative methods for verifying compliance are something raised

by independent inspectors to require cylinder manufacturers to perform

check analyses when readily available information may be used. The

proposed regulation would allow cylinder manufacturers to use analyses

obtained from the mill to verify the material conforms to standards for

the cylinder specification.

Paragraph (f) specifies performance-oriented requirements for

threads. These requirements would allow the manufacturer to design the

threads in conformance with any appropriate standard as long as certain

thread shear strength limits are met.

Paragraphs (h) and (i) list all tests that apply to metric-marked

cylinders. A new approach for the metric-marked cylinders is the

categorization of design qualification tests (paragraph (h) in addition

to production tests in paragraph (i)). These paragraphs include

criteria for each test as well as acceptance criteria. The individual

cylinder specifications prescribe which tests in Sec. 178.69 apply to

each specification, as well as any unique test requirements or

acceptable results. Centralizing all test information in one location

reduces repetition in the regulations and reduces the likelihood of

inconsistent requirements in the specifications. The requirement that

new metric-marked cylinders have cycle testing performed during design

qualification incorporates current industry practice. RSPA believes

that the cycle test is an important design performance test that

assesses cylinder fatigue life and, therefore also, proposes this

requirement for welded cylinders.

Paragraph (i)(12) contains requirements for ultrasonic examination

(UT); a non-destructive test method designed to detect surface and

subsurface flaws and to measure the thickness of a cylinder and the

size of a flaw or crack. The UT equipment has the capability to detect

the presence of discontinuities on or even within the cylinder

sidewall, shoulder, or bottom. UT would be required for all seamless

and some welded metric-marked cylinders at the time of manufacture.

Paragraph (k) prescribes marking requirements. A significant change

for the new metric-marked cylinders is marking with the test pressure,

rather than service pressure, expressed in bar. To communicate vital

information to requalifiers, metric-marked cylinders that require UT

examination during requalification must be marked ``UT'' as well as

with the minimum wall thickness. Other markings, such as country of

origin, will be required for metric-marked cylinders; thereby making

them more acceptable for transportation of hazardous materials in

international commerce.

Paragraph (l) includes a prohibition on coatings that may interfere

with inspections and tests, or that allow moisture to accumulate

between the cylinder wall and the coating. This provision is RSPA's

response to potential threats to safety associated with coating

materials, such as vinyl, which promote corrosion.

Section 178.70

This proposed section groups the common requirements that apply to

all DOT 3 series metric-marked seamless cylinders (DOT 3M, DOT 3ALM,

and DOT 3FM).

Paragraph (c) specifies materials for 3 series cylinders.

Authorized materials are located in Appendix A, Table 1 for steel and

nickel and Table 2 for aluminum. The steel compositions authorized

include two carbon manganese type, one chrome moly type steel, and one

stainless steel type. The aluminum composition is a 6061 alloy. These

compositions are broad enough to cover most material specifications

currently in use.

[[Page 58472]]

Paragraph (e) specifies wall thickness requirements. The current

DOT 3AAX requirement in Sec. 178.37(a)(2)(i) that adresses additional

design loads due to bending is proposed in this general section for all

DOT 3-series metric-marked cylinders. The inclusion of this requirement

sets a precedent in the HMR by allowing manufacturers the flexibility

to adapt any metric-marked cylinder specification to a ``tube trailer''

type cylinder.

Section 178.71

This section proposes the new DOT 3M metric-marked cylinder

specification. This specification combines aspects of the current DOT

3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, and 3BN specifications.

Proposed paragraph (c) authorizes construction using steel,

stainless steel, and nickel. The carbon manganese composition

authorized encompasses the steel currently used for DOT 3A

specification cylinders. The inclusion of the stainless steel

composition for a seamless cylinder will eliminate the need for many

exemptions.

Section 178.72

This section proposes the new DOT 3ALM metric cylinder

specification. This specification is very similar to the current DOT

3AL except that aluminum alloy 6351 is not authorized as a material of

construction.

Section 178.73

This section proposes the new DOT 3FM metric-marked cylinder

specification. The proposed DOT 3FM cylinder is designed to a high

stress level similar to the DOT 3T, and incorporates the strong

structural integrity of the DOT 3AA cylinder. This specification meets

many of the requirements of the ISO Standard 9809-2 cylinder, which

should make it readily acceptable in international commerce. The

authorized materials of construction are Grade B, a chrome molybdenum

type steel currently authorized for 3T cylinders and Grade E a new

chrome molybdenum type steel. Steels such as Grade E with higher

ultimate strength levels (above 115,000 psi) are currently authorized

under exemption. Because the most critical failure mode is cracking,

these cylinders will be subjected to UT examination at the time of

manufacture and requalification.

Section 178.81

This section contains specific requirements for the proposed DOT 4M

metric-marked cylinder specification. This specification combines

aspects of the current DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, 4B240ET, 4E, 4D, 4DA, 4DS and

4AA480 specifications. The maximum design test pressure is 140 bar

(2030 psi). This represents a pressure of more than double what is

currently authorized for welded cylinders, except the DOT 4DA and 4DS

specification, which have a maximum test pressure of 1800 psi.

Authorized materials would include aluminum alloy 5154 currently used

for the DOT 4E specification cylinder, as well as carbon, HSLA,

stainless, and 4130X steels. For DOT 4M specification cylinders with a

test pressure of 70 bar or more, the welds must be 100% radiographed to

provide assurance of the joint quality. Manufacturers of DOT 4M

specification cylinders would have the option of performing an

ultrasonic examination in lieu of the radiographic examination.

RSPA solicits comments on the need for a higher performance welded

cylinder specification than what is proposed in this NPRM. Comments are

also requested as to whether such a higher performance specification

should be distinguished from the lower performance by pressure, or by

material strength, or some other performance standard. RSPA is

currently considering a cylinder specification with a design test

pressure of either more than 140 bar (2030 psi) or with an ultimate

tensile strength of 830 Mpa (121,000 psi) or higher.

Part 180

Part 180, Subpart C

This new subpart would prescribe requirements for the continuing

qualification, maintenance, repair and rebuilding of DOT specification

and exemption cylinders. Most of the requirements are currently

contained in Secs. 173.34 and 173.301. Readers should refer to the

references under Part X of this preamble for the citation of the

corresponding provision that is similar to the current provision

contained in the HMR. The proposed requirements include DOT metric-

marked cylinders.

Section 180.203

This section contains definitions for terms used throughout Subpart

C. Some of these definitions are ``commercially free of corrosive

components,'' ``condemn,'' ``defect,'' ``rejected cylinder,'' and

``volumetric expansion test.''

Section 180.205

This section prescribes general requirements for the continuing

qualification and use of cylinders and for each person performing a

cylinder requalification function.

Section 180.207

This section prescribes requirements for the periodic

requalification of metric-marked specification cylinders. Proposed

Table I specifies the periodic requalification requirements. The

standard requalification period is once every five years, with extended

requalification periods provided for cylinders used exclusively to

transport certain gases. For example, when used exclusively for

noncorrosive, nontoxic (LC50 of not less than 5000 ppm) gases, DOT 3M,

3ALM, and 3FM specification cylinders must be requalified at least once

every ten years. Similarly, a DOT 4M specification cylinder must be

requalified at least once every 15 years. DOT 3M and 4M specification

cylinders used exclusively as fire extinguishers and meeting the

limitation of special provision 18 must be requalified at least once

every twelve years, as currently required for nonmetric-marked DOT

specification cylinders used as fire extinguishers.

All DOT 3M, 3ALM, 3FM and 4M specification cylinders must be

requalified using the ultrasonic examination, instead of a volumetric

expansion test. A DOT 4M specification cylinder, with a marked test

pressure of 70 bar or less and having a tensile strength less than 830

Kpa (120,000 psi), may be subjected to a volumetric expansion test in

lieu of an ultrasonic examination. Ultrasonic examination improves

safety by automating the identification and measurement of wall

thickness, pitting and cracking. It improves the probability of

detection for internal pits and cracks over current internal visual

inspection. Ultrasonic examination also reduces inspection and labor

costs, cleaning costs and waste water by allowing cylinder

requalification without removing the valve and purging the cylinder's

contents, and without the deliberate introduction of water into the

cylinder.

Comments are invited on the proposed requirements for ultrasonic

examination of cylinders. RSPA also solicits information on industry

practices in this area, the costs and benefits for using UT

examinations and the pass/fail criteria in Table II.

Section 180.209

This section prescribes requirements that are currently contained

in Sec. 173.34(e) for the periodic requalification of nonmetric-marked

specification cylinders. The current rule for the requalification of

most DOT specification and exemption cylinders requires a volumetric

expansion test, external and internal visual inspections

[[Page 58473]]

which are not suitable for detecting a buried or internal crack.

In proposed paragraph (a)(1), note 2 following the table requires

detection and measurement of the sidewall cracks in DOT 3T and 3HT

cylinders at each requalification period by an approved non-destructive

test (NDT) method. Cracks in these cylinders can be detected by using a

suitable NDT method, such as acoustic emissions or appropriate shear

wave ultrasonic examination. Because the ultimate tensile strength

(UTS) of DOT 3T and 3HT cylinders are above 7,900 Mpa (155,000 psi),

crack growth due to stress corrosion and fatigue can occur during

normal service. An undetected crack can grow to a critical size and

result in a catastrophic failure. Manufacturers of specificition DOT 3T

and other high strength exemption cylinders are required to perform UT

examinations at the time of manufacture.

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) allows for nonmetric-marked specification

cylinders to be ultrasonically examined as an alternative

requalification method. An external visual inspection is required to be

conducted in conjunction with the UT examination. The requalification

period for nonmetric-marked cylinders is the same as required in Table

I of this proposed section.

Section 180.211

This section prescribes repair, rebuild and heat treatment

requirements currently prescribed in Secs. 173.34(g) thru 173.34(l),

with certain revisions. These requirements are standardized and

simplified.

Section 180.213

This section contains marking requirements presently contained in

Sec. 173.34(e)(7), with certain revisions.

A new requirement for all specification cylinders would be added to

identify the type of inspection, test, or work performed on a cylinder.

This new requirement would enable shippers, carriers, and enforcement

personnel to readily determine the type and date of each inspection or

test, or whether any repair or rebuilding work has been performed on a

cylinder.

The methods for marking cylinders would permit stamping, engraving,

scribing or any other method approved in writing by the Associate

Administrator for HMS. In response to a NPGA petition, RSPA also

proposes allowing use of pressure sensitive labels to display the

requalification markings on fire extinguishers. However, RSPA is also

soliciting comments on whether there are any methods that should or

should not be authorized for application of requalification markings.

Currently, after a cylinder passes the requalification volumetric

expansion test, internal and external visual examinations, etc., the

RIN holder stamps the month and year of the test and its RIN on the

cylinder. This marking is normally accomplished with steel stamps.

However, RSPA has granted exemptions, such as E-11372, authorizing

certain fire extinguishers and fiber-wrapped cylinders to display the

requalification markings using labels. RSPA is considering whether to

incorporate new marking methods for DOT specification cylinders

following the requalification process.

RSPA requests comments on the feasibility, costs and benefits of

alternative marking methods, and whether affected persons believe there

is justification for RSPA to adopt alternative methods.

Section 180.215

This section contains the reporting and record retention

requirements currently prescribed in Sec. 173.34(e)(8), with certain

revisions.

The retester authorization record requirements in current

Sec. 173.34(e)(8)(i) would be revised to include all cylinder

requalifiers who inspect, test, repair, or rebuild cylinders. In

addition, proposed paragraph (d)(1) requires that records covering any

work involving welding or brazing repairs, or the building or reheat

treatment of cylinders must be retained by the cylinder requalifier for

15 years. The requalifier would be required to retain inspection and

test records until expiration of the inspection or requalification

period or until the cylinder is again requalified, whichever occurs

first. Records of any welding or brazing repair, rebuilding or reheat

treatment would be required to be retained for 15 years.

XII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget. The rule is considered significant

under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of

Transportation (44 FR 11034) because of public interest. A preliminary

regulatory evaluation is available for review in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Impact

General

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an

agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities

unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

RSPA is unable, at this time, to certify that this proposed rule will

not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small

entities. RSPA has performed an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) of this proposed rule's potential impact on small entities, and

the assessment has been placed into the public docket for this

rulemaking. Written public comments that clarify the degree of

potential impacts on affected small entities are requested.

IRFA Summary

The Regulatory Flexibility Act is concerned with identifying the

economic impact of regulatory actions on small businesses and other

small entities. Unless alternative definitions have been established by

the agency in consultation with the Small Business Administration, the

definition of ``small business'' has the same meaning as under the

Small Business Act. As RSPA has established no special definition, the

agency employs thresholds published under criteria in 13 CFR 121.101,

e.g., 500 employees for cylinder manufacturers (SIC 3443--Fabricated

Plate Work (Boiler Shops) and SIC 3462 Iron and Steel Forgings).

Need for the proposed rule. As indicated throughout the preamble to

this proposed rule, current requirements for the manufacture, use, and

requalification of cylinders can be traced to standards first applied

in the early 1900's. The regulations were subsequently revised in a

piecemeal fashion, with adjustments being made to address particular

situations and problems on a case-by-case basis. This notice represents

RSPA's first comprehensive review of requirements pertaining to the

transportation of compressed gases in cylinders and spheres. This

action is being taken to: (1) Simplify requirements for the production

of new cylinders, (2) provide flexibility in the design, construction

processes and permitted use of cylinders, (3) adopt advanced

technological processes and procedures for cylinder manufacturing and

requalification, (4) achieve an increased level of safety through

simplification of the rules and regulations, (5) reduce the need to

issue, and renew, exemptions

[[Page 58474]]

that permit variances from detailed specifications concerning materials

of construction, design, and manufacturing processes, and (6)

facilitate international commerce in the transportation of compressed

gases.

Objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule. The intended

effect of this action is to reduce threats to health, safety and

property in the transportation of hazardous materials, particularly

flammable, toxic and other compressed gases. Federal hazardous

materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) directs the

Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe

transportation of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate and

foreign commerce. Section 5103(b) specifies that the regulations shall

apply to persons transporting hazardous materials in commerce; causing

hazardous materials to be transported in commerce; or manufacturing,

fabricating, marking, maintaining, reconditioning, repairing, or

testing a packaging or container that is represented, marked,

certified, or sold by such persons as qualified for use in transporting

hazardous material in commerce.

Identification of potentially affected small entities. 1.

Businesses likely to be most affected by this proposed rule are

manufacturers of specification DOT-3 and DOT-4 series cylinders (SIC

3443 and SIC 3462). Currently, RSPA estimates there are 40

manufacturers of specification DOT-3 and DOT-4 series cylinders. Of

that number, approximately 29 are ``small businesses'' under the Small

Business Act.

In the case of approximately eleven (11) manufacturers (five (5) of

whom are small businesses) of high-pressure (specification DOT-3

series) cylinders there should be little or no burden attributed to

requirements contained in this proposed rule, as many of these new

processes and technological innovations have already been adopted as

part of their own quality management program.

In addition to the above, there are another twenty-nine (29)

cylinder manufacturers (twenty-four (24) of whom are small businesses)

identified in RSPA's database of registered markings for packaging

manufacturers, and/or holders of exemptions that authorize the

manufacture, marking, and sale of cylinders that do not fully conform

to specifications for the DOT-3 and DOT-4 series. Eight (8) of these

cylinder manufacturers (including five (5) that meet the criterion of a

small business) are members of the Compressed Gas Association (CGA),

one of the primary initiators of petitions for rulemaking to revise the

HMR for greater consistency with regulations of the world's leading

industrial nations. It is RSPA's understanding that all CGA members

support proposed revisions contained in the CGA petitions. However,

that leaves another twenty-one (21) non-CGA-member cylinder

manufacturers, of which RSPA assumes at least 90% (approximately

nineteen (19)) meet the SBA criterion for a small business, that would

be affected by the proposed rule.

Some small entities may experience an adverse economic impact

attributed to the proposed rule's prohibition on the manufacture of

non-metric-marked specification DOT-3 and DOT-4 series cylinders after

a future date (five years from the effective date of a final rule).

Prior to that date, small entities would, at their own discretion, be

permitted to manufacture (1) non-metric-marked cylinders only, (2)

metric-marked cylinders only, or (3) a combination of non-metric-marked

cylinders and metric-marked cylinders. However, after the phase-out

date, these small entities may manufacture DOT-3 and DOT-4 cylinders

conforming to metric-marked specifications only.

RSPA anticipates that, upon review of these proposed requirements,

some small entities currently producing specification DOT-3 or DOT-4

series cylinders may determine that it is not economically feasible to

continue this line of products. For example, RSPA estimates the average

annual cost of the proposed requirement for an independent inspection

agency to observe cylinder manufacturing operations and processes at

$59,286 per facility. However, that average is calculated on the basis

of a wide range of costs for individual facilities that produce

specification DOT-4 series cylinders (e.g., $5,000 for an occasional

production run to $100,000 for a manufacturer that operates a dedicated

line). For manufacturers that produce a relatively large volume of

these cylinders the CGA estimates the additional cost of manufacturing

attributed to this provision will be an additional 10 cents per

cylinder. For a completed 20-pound propane cylinder that currently

sells for approximately $25 (retail price), RSPA expects that the added

expense would not be prohibitively costly to the manufacturer or to the

ultimate consumer.

RSPA understands that the production of specification DOT-3 and

DOT-4 cylinders by some manufacturers that are small businesses

oftentimes is but one of a wide-range of pressure vessels, or other

products, in the company's product line. Knowing the importance of

specification DOT-3 and DOT-4 series cylinders to the viability of

these small entities, is critical to RSPA's determination of whether

this rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small manufacturing companies. Small entities are, therefore,

specifically invited to provide comments on the economic impact of the

proposed rule on their overall operations.

2. In addition to cylinder manufacturers, there are approximately

1,400 businesses currently engaged in the periodic requalification of

high-pressure cylinders. Here, also, RSPA conservatively estimates that

at least 90 percent of these requalifiers are small businesses. This

number includes businesses that manage large fleets of cylinders, such

as cylinders charged with propane to power forklift trucks, and for use

by retail customers through cylinder exchange programs. Still other

companies, generally thought to fall within SIC 7389 (business

services, not elsewhere classified), manage fleets of cylinders used in

(1) carbon dioxide service for carbonated soft drinks, (2) fire

extinguisher service, and (3) compressed air/oxygen breathing equipment

used in recreational diving operations, as well as by emergency

services personnel, like firefighters. All of these businesses are

currently approved to requalify cylinders through performance of the

hydrostatic pressure test.

The proposed rule would require each business to determine whether

it should: (1) upgrade test equipment from the hydrostatic type to

ultrasonic examination type to be able to service the older DOT

specification cylinders and the new metric-marked cylinders, or (2)

continue to maintain its currently installed hydrostatic test equipment

and service only the older DOT specification cylinders (estimated to

now number 300 million, a majority of which may be expected to remain

in service well into the next century) and the proposed DOT-4M metric-

marked cylinder that have a marked test pressure of 70 bar.

RSPA anticipates that some small entities currently performing

requalification functions by the hydrostatic pressure test method may

determine that investments in new ultrasonic test equipment (requiring

an investment currently estimated at $50-$80 thousand amortized over a

period of ten (10) years) may not be economically feasible, considering

the comparatively small number of metric-marked cylinders (vs. the

current size of the domestic fleet of approximately 300

[[Page 58475]]

million cylinders) that will be produced beginning perhaps as early as

1999, and first requiring periodic requalification in 2004. Currently,

five (5) of the eighteen (18) retester facilities currently performing

requalification of cylinders by ultrasonic examination, rather than by

hydrostatic pressure testing, under terms of special exemptions issued

by RSPA are thought to meet the criterion for a small business.

Although the ultrasonic examination method initially involves a

large capital investment, it offers cost savings for businesses that

own and/or use cylinders for the transportation of compressed gases. In

addition, ultrasonic examination provides (1) substantial benefits for

increased safety, (2) opportunities for reducing emissions of hazardous

materials to the environment, and (3) reduced contamination of

cylinders.

Commenters are specifically invited to provide additional

information with respect to this proposed requirement for ultrasonic

testing of metric-marked cylinders and its potential impact on small

entities. RSPA requests comments from affected small entities regarding

the potential adverse impact this proposed rule may have on their

cylinder requalification operations specifically, and the overall

viability of their enterprise should they determine it would be

economically prohibitive to continue to perform cylinder

requalification services.

3. Finally, there are literally hundreds of thousands of commercial

establishments that own and use cylinders manufactured to

specifications in the DOT-3 and DOT-4 series. Those business sectors

include agriculture; mining; construction; manufacturing;

transportation, communications, electric, gas and sanitary services;

wholesale trade; retail trade; services; and many other nonclassifiable

establishments. On the basis of a Small Business Administration

estimate that of the 24 million businesses located in the U.S. only

15,000 (.000625%) are large firms, RSPA concedes it is likely that over

99% of the businesses that make use of compressed gases in DOT

specification cylinders are small businesses. (Source: SBA Office of

Advocacy, Small Business Answer Card 1998).

RSPA believes the proposed rules will generally have a small

individual, though significant in the aggregate (i.e., $10 million

annually), positive benefit for all of these businesses by making the

metric-marked cylinders they buy or lease acceptable for trade and use

in worldwide commerce. In addition, those cylinders will be allowed to

be charged with a wider range of compressed gases and other materials,

and, in many cases, the period between periodic requalification will be

extended by several years, thereby resulting in cost savings attributed

to less frequent inspections. For example, in the case of a

specification DOT-3AL aluminum cylinder, the 5 year retest cycle would

be extended to 10 years for the specification DOT-3ALM. In time, there

may be as many as 1 million such cylinders in carbon dioxide service

for the carbonated beverage industry alone. A single retest of this

fleet of cylinders over a ten-year period vs. the current five-year

period, at an average cost of $10 per cylinder, i.e., $10 million,

would result in aggregate savings to the cylinder owners of $1 million

per year. In the very competitive soft-drink industry, RSPA believes

that the cost savings would be shared broadly.

To the extent that RSPA has failed to recognize potential impacts

on the general universe of small entities that own or use cylinders,

commenters are invited to identify those impacts and the magnitude of

their affect on small entities.

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. This proposed rule

contains one new requirement for reporting and recordkeeping.

Specifically, persons who requalify cylinders by a visual inspection,

as currently authorized by Sec. 173.34(e)(13), would, under proposed

Sec. 180.209(g), be required to first obtain a requalification

identification number (RIN) from RSPA's Associate Administrator for

Hazardous Materials Safety under provisions of proposed Sec. 107.805.

Essential elements of the application for approval include: (1) the

name and address of the facility manager, (2) identification of the DOT

specification/exemption cylinders that will be inspected at the

facility, and (3) a signed and dated certification by the applicant

that the facility will operate in compliance with applicable

requirements of the HMR, and that the hazmat employees performing

inspections have been properly trained, to include familiarization with

the appropriate CGA C-6 series pamphlets concerning the conduct of

visual inspections.

An approval, if issued by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety, would be effective for a maximum of five years, at

which time the approval holder would have to file a new application for

approval. Other than the requirements for having to file an application

for approval, and entering the four-digit RIN (in addition to the

month, year and letter ``E'' currently required) on each cylinder

requalified by the visual inspection method, there is no additional

regulatory burden associated with this proposal.

While the actual number of facilities currently operating under the

exception provided by Sec. 173.34(e)(13) is unknown, RSPA assumes, on

the basis of data compiled by the Bureau of the Census, that the actual

number is not more than 6,691, of which 5,651 are retail dealers of

bottled liquefied petroleum gases (SIC Code 5984), 968 are merchant

wholesalers of industrial gases, except liquefied petroleum gases (SIC

Code 5169), and 72 are entities identified as EPA-approved reclaimers

of refrigerant gases.

On a per facility basis, RSPA estimates the cost of this reporting

and recordkeeping requirement would be $122.50 per five-year cycle.

This estimate was calculated on the basis of cost data submitted by

RSPA to the Office of Management and Budget in support of an approval

issued by OMB (2137-0022) concerning Testing, Inspection and Marking

Requirements for Cylinders. RSPA does not see this proposed regulatory

requirement as inhibiting the ability of currently excepted retesters

to continue to provide this cylinder requalification service to an

extent that it threatens the viability of their primary business, i.e.,

the sale of compressed gases in relatively small units. RSPA

specifically invites commenters to provide data that supports or

refutes this estimate of the costs of compliance with the new

requirement to obtain a retester (requalification) identification

number and its impact on small businesses currently authorized to

perform this requalification function without first having to obtain an

approval from the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials

Safety.

Related Federal rules and regulations. With respect to the

production, permitted use, and periodic requalification of cylinders

used in the transportation in commerce of compressed gases, there are

no related rules and regulations issued by other departments or

agencies of the Federal government.

Alternate proposals for small businesses. The Regulatory

Flexibility Act directs agencies to establish exceptions and differing

compliance standards, when possible, for small business, while still

meeting objectives of the applicable regulatory statutes. In the case

of manufacture, use, inspection, testing, retesting and requalification

of DOT specification cylinders in compressed gas service, RSPA believes

[[Page 58476]]

that it is not possible to establish such differing standards and still

accomplish the objectives of Federal hazardous materials transportation

law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5127). RSPA further believes that the discussion in

this NPRM as to the need for regulatory action, issues raised by many

of the affected parties through petitions for rulemaking, applications

for exemption, and otherwise, effectively requires RSPA to apply one

set of requirements applicable to small and large businesses alike.

While certain regulatory actions may affect the competitive

situation of an industry by imposing relatively greater burdens on

small-scale than on large-scale enterprises, RSPA does not believe that

this will be the case with the proposed rule. The principal types of

compliance expenditure effectively required by the proposed rule would

be imposed on each cylinder represented through its specification

markings as conforming to a DOT specification, whether manufactured by,

used by, or serviced by a large or a small business. There are

administrative efficiency advantages, and economies of scale, available

to a large firm, but the requirements considered in this rulemaking are

intended to assure a minimum level of safety for packagings used to

contain hazardous materials that pose high-order risks in

transportation. Thus, no provisions may be waived simply on the basis

that they would be burdensome to a small business.

At the same time, RSPA notes that the proposed rules were developed

under the assumption that small businesses comprise an overwhelming

majority of entities that would be compelled to comply, particularly

regarding permitted use of cylinders and their periodic requalification

for continued use. For that reason, in its development of the proposed

rules, RSPA considered each requirement and determined this set

represents the minimal requirements necessary for it to be able to

assure an adequate level of safety in transportation.

For example, as an accommodation to small businesses, RSPA proposes

to (1) permit facilities to continue to use their currently installed

hydrostatic pressure test equipment to retest non-metric marked

specification cylinders, millions of which have been in service for

several decades and may be expected to continue in service for many

more decades, and (2) permit the requalification of certain metric-

marked cylinders, i.e., specification DOT-4M with a marked test

pressure 70 bar.

Section 610 Review

Pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

Sec. 610), RSPA has conducted a review of current requirements for the

manufacture, use, and requalification of cylinders. The purpose of this

review was to identify regulations that have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities and to revise those

regulations, where appropriate. In proposing revisions to the existing

regulations, RSPA has attempted to minimize the economic impact on

small business entities. It has done this, in part, by proposing to

reduce from fifteen to four the number of authorized DOT-3 and DOT-4

series cylinder specifications, allowing greater fill limits for

metric-marked cylinders, and extending the time between periodic

requalification of metric-marked cylinders. Also, small business, such

as boiler shops (SIC 3443), iron and steel forging shops (SIC 3462),

merchant wholesalers of industrial gases, except liquefied petroleum

gas (LPG) (SIC 5169), retail dealers of LPG (SIC 5984), and business

services, not elsewhere classified (SIC 7389), will benefit from the

greater safety provided by this proposed rule. RSPA encourages small

entities to comment on the economic impact of proposals contained in

this NPRM.

First, RSPA examined whether there is a continuing need for its

cylinder regulations. Based on the various characteristics of

compressed gases (e.g., flammability and toxicity) and the associated

risks that are involved in the transportation of gases, RSPA recognizes

that there is a continuing need for its cylinder regulations. However,

as discussed previously in this preamble, RSPA is in receipt of

numerous petitions for rulemaking concerning the cylinder regulations.

Many of these petitions propose that RSPA incorporate accepted industry

practices and new technology (e.g., new marking methods). RSPA has

accepted many of these petitions and is proposing to incorporate new

technology where the new technology achieves an equivalent or higher

level of safety (e.g., ultrasonic testing). RSPA also reviewed

exemptions issued under 49 CFR Part 107 and has incorporated those

exemption provisions that have achieved a proven safety record.

In addition to the above, over the years, the regulated community

has requested that RSPA reduce the complexity of its cylinder

regulations. RSPA addressed these concerns by modifying the language

used in the proposed rule, including a definition section and changing

the organizational structure of the cylinder regulations. RSPA also

recognizes that market conditions have changed dramatically since many

of the existing rules were first adopted. Today, cylinders are

manufactured, used, and transported to, from, and between entities in

the global marketplace. In recognition of that worldwide sale and

distribution of compressed gases in cylinders, RSPA is proposing to

revise the HMR in a manner that is harmonious with international

standards (e.g., metric-marked cylinders).

RSPA is confident that the proposed rule and existing cylinder

regulations do not duplicate or conflict with other Federal rules. In

addition, conflicts with state or local regulations are expressly

provided for in Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49

U.S.C. Sec. 5125). Under this statutory authority, RSPA issues

preemption determinations as to whether a State, political subdivision,

or Indian tribe regulation or law, governing the transportation of

hazardous materials, is preempted under Federal law (see 49 C.F.R. Part

107, Subpart C).

C. Executive Orders 12612 and 13084

This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in Executive Orders 12612

(``Federalism'') and 13084 (``Consultation and Coordination with Indian

Tribal Governments''). Because this proposed regulation would have no

substantial direct effect on the States or the relationship, or the

distribution of power and responsibilities, between the Federal

Government and the States, RSPA has determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a

Federalism Assessment. Because this rule would not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments, the

funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not

apply.

Federal hazardous material transportation law contains express

preemption provisions at 49 U.S.C. 5125 that preempt State, local, and

Indian tribe requirements if----

(1) Complying with a requirement of the State, political

subdivision, or Indian tribe and Federal hazardous material

transportation law or regulations is not possible;

(2) The requirement of the State, political subdivision, or Indian

tribe, as applied or enforced, is an obstacle to accomplishing and

carrying out Federal hazardous material transportation law or

regulations; or

[[Page 58477]]

(3) The requirement of the State, political subdivision, or Indian

tribe concerns any of the following ``covered subjects'' and is not

substantially the same as a provision of Federal hazardous material

transportation law or regulations:

(A) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous

material;

(B) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and

placarding of hazardous material;

(C) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents

related to hazardous material and requirements related to the number,

contents, and placement of those documents;

(D) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the

unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; and

(E) The design, manufacture, fabricating, marking, maintenance,

reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a packaging or container

represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in

transporting hazardous material.

This proposed rule concerns the packing and handling of hazardous

materials, and the design, manufacture, fabrication, marking,

maintenance, and testing of cylinders that are marked and certified as

qualified for use in the transportation of hazardous materials. If so

adopted as final, this rule would preempt any State, local, or Indian

tribe requirements concerning these subjects unless the non-Federal

requirements are ``substantially the same'' (see 49 CFR 107.202(d)) as

the Federal requirements.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2)) provides that if DOT issues a

regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, DOT must determine

and publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal

preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day

following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two

years after the date of issuance.

RSPA requests comments on what the effective date of the Federal

preemption should be for the requirements in this proposed rule that

concern covered subjects.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates under the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of

$100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State,

local, or Indian tribal governments, or the private sector. This rule

is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the

rule.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

`` * * * an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a

valid OMB control number.'' 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(iii)(6).

The information collection and recordkeeping requirements in

current Secs. 173.34, 173.302(c) and 178.35 pertaining to records

prepared by persons performing the requalification, repair, rebuild and

use of cylinders and requirements in current Sec. 173.34 pertaining to

persons seeking approval to requalify cylinders, were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of 44 U.S.C.

chapter 35 and assigned control number 2137-0022, with an expiration

date of August 31, 1999. This information is used to verify that

cylinders meet the required manufacturing standards prior to being

authorized for initial use, and that once manufactured, the cylinders

are maintained and used in compliance with applicable requirements of

the HMR as packagings for hazardous materials. In this proposed rule,

these information collection and recordkeeping requirements for records

are revised and are in Secs. 178.35, 178.69(e)(13), 180.205, 180.209,

180.211, 180.213, and 180.215.

The information and recordkeeping requirements in current

Secs. 173.300a and 173.300b for persons seeking approval to be an

independent inspection agency, and for chemical analyses and tests of

DOT specification and exemption cylinders conducted outside of the

United States, were approved by OMB and assigned control number 2137-

0557, with an expiration date of July 31, 1999. The information is used

to evaluate an applicant's qualification to perform the applicable

packaging functions and to ensure material of construction used in

cylinders made outside the United States are in accordance with the

applicable requirements. In this proposed rule, the information

collection and recordkeeping requirements are in Secs. 107.803,

107.805, 107.807 and 180.205(c). The information collection and

recordkeeping requirements for persons seeking approval as cylinder

requalifiers and approval to change a cylinder's service pressure are

removed from OMB control number 2137-0022 and being placed with the

other approval requirements under OMB control number 2137-0557. OMB

control number 2137-0557 includes information and recordkeeping

requirements for other than cylinders. The estimates contained in this

proposed rule address only the cylinder provisions.

Because this proposed rule would establish certain new cylinder

specifications, broaden the approval requirements for affected persons

who requalify cylinders, and would relocate the cylinder

requalification requirements to other sections, revisions would be made

to the current burden hour submission. RSPA has revised the burden

estimates based on the proposal in this NPRM and will submit revised

burden estimates to OMB.

OMB Control Number 2137-0022

Affected Public: Cylinder requalifiers, repairers and rebuilders,

and owners of certain DOT specification and exemption cylinders.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

Number of Respondents: 500.

Total Annual Responses: 5,000.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,729.

Total Annual Cost for Development and Maintenance: $42,683.

OMB Control Number 2137-0557

Affected Public: Cylinder manufacturers, requalifiers, and persons

seeking to change a cylinder's service pressure.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

Number of Respondents: 2,027.

Total Annual Responses: 2,027.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,628.

Total Annual Cost for Development and Maintenance: $294,544.

RSPA invites comments on these revised information collection

estimates, including any paperwork burdens not already considered.

Requests for a copy of these information collections should be directed

to Deborah Boothe, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Room 8102,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone (202) 366-

8553 or 1-800-467-4922. Written comments should be received by the

close of the comment period indentified in the DATES section of this

rulemaking and should be addressed to the Dockets Management System as

identified in the ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking. Comments must

reference the docket number, RSPA 98-3684 (HM-220).

F. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The

Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in

April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading

[[Page 58478]]

of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the

Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 107

Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials

transportation, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 171

Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,

Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

49 CFR Part 172

Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labeling,

Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 173

Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers,

Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,

Uranium.

49 CFR Part 177

Hazardous materials transportation, Motor vehicle safety, Packaging

and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 178

Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 180

Hazardous materials transportation, Motor vehicle safety, Packaging

and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, title 49, Chapter I, Subchapters

A and C of the Code of Federal Regulations, are proposed to be amended

as follows:

PART 107--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for Part 107 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, 44701; Sec. 212-213, Pub. L.

104-121, 110 Stat. 857; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.

Sec. 107.3 [Amended]

2. In Sec. 107.3, the definition of ``Registration'' would be

amended by removing the wording ``registration with RSPA as a cylinder

retester pursuant to 49 CFR 173.34(e)(1), or''.

3. Subpart I would be added to Part 107 to read as follows:

Subpart I--Approval of Independent Inspection Agencies, Cylinder

Requalifiers, and Non-domestic Chemical Analyses and Tests of DOT

Specification Cylinders

Sec.

107.801 Purpose and Scope.

107.803 Approval of independent inspection agency.

107.805 Approval of cylinder requalifiers.

107.807 Approval of non-domestic chemical analyses and tests.

Subpart I--Approval of Independent Inspection Agencies, Cylinder

Requalifiers, and Non-domestic Chemical Analyses and Tests of DOT

Specification Cylinders

Sec. 107.801 Purpose and scope.

(a) This subpart prescribes procedures for--

(1) A person who seeks approval to be an independent inspection

agency to perform cylinder inspections and verifications required by

parts 178 and 180 of this chapter;

(2) A person who seeks approval to engage in the requalification

(i.e., inspection, testing or certification), rebuild or repair of a

cylinder manufactured in accordance with a DOT specification under

subchapter C of this chapter or under the terms of an exemption issued

under this part;

(3) A person who seeks approval to perform the manufacturing

chemical analyses and tests of DOT specification or exemption cylinders

outside the United States.

(b) No person may engage in a function identified in paragraph (a)

of this section unless approved by the Associate Administrator in

accordance with the provisions of this subpart. Each person shall

comply with the applicable requirements in this subpart. In addition,

the procedural requirements in subpart H of this part apply to the

filing, processing and termination of an approval issued under this

subpart.

Sec. 107.803 Approval of independent inspection agency.

(a) General. Prior to performing cylinder inspections and

verifications required by parts 178 and 180 of this chapter, a person

must apply to the Associate Administrator for an approval as an

independent inspection agency. A person approved as an independent

inspection agency is not a RSPA agent or representative.

(b) Criteria. No applicant for approval as an independent

inspection agency may be engaged in the manufacture of cylinders for

use in the transportation of hazardous materials, or be directly or

indirectly controlled by, or have a financial involvement with, any

entity that manufactures cylinders for use in the transportation of

hazardous materials, except for providing services as an independent

inspector.

(c) Application information. Each applicant must submit an

application in conformance with Sec. 107.705 that must contain the

information prescribed in Sec. 107.705(a). In addition, the application

must contain the following information:

(1) Name and address of each manufacturing facility where tests and

inspections are to be performed and a detailed description of the

inspection and testing facilities to be used by the applicant and the

applicant's ability to perform the inspections and to verify the

inspections required by part 178 of this chapter or under the terms of

an exemption issued under this part.

(2) Name, address, and principal business activity of each person

having any direct or indirect ownership interest in the applicant

greater than three percent and any direct or indirect ownership

interest in each subsidiary or division of the applicant.

(3) Name of each individual whom the applicant proposes to employ

as an inspector and will be responsible for certifying inspection and

test results and a statement of that person's qualifications.

(4) An identification or qualification number assigned to each

inspector who is supervised by a certifying inspector identified in

(c)(3) of this section.

(5) A statement that the applicant will perform its functions

independent of the manufacturers and owners of the cylinders.

(6) If the applicant's principal place of business is in a country

other than the United States--

(i) A copy of the designation from the Competent Authority of that

country delegating to the applicant an approval or designated agency

authority for the type of packaging for which a DOT designation is

sought; and

(ii) A statement from the Competent Authority of that country

stating that similar authority is delegated to other Independent

Inspection Agencies who are approved under this subpart and that no

condition or limitation will be imposed upon United States citizens or

organizations that is not required of its own citizenry.

(7) The date and signature of the person certifying the approval

application

(d) Facility inspection. Upon the request of the Associate

Administrator, the applicant shall allow the Associate Administrator or

the Associate Administrator's designee to inspect the applicant's

facilities and records. The person seeking approval must bear the cost

of RSPA's inspection.

[[Page 58479]]

Sec. 107.805 Approval of cylinder requalifiers.

(a) General. A person must meet the requirements of this section to

be approved to inspect, test, certify, repair, or rebuild a cylinder in

accordance with a DOT specification under subpart C of part 178 or

subpart C of part 180 of this chapter or under the terms of an

exemption issued under this part.

(b) Each applicant must arrange for an independent inspection

agency, approved by the Associate Administrator pursuant to this

subpart, to perform a review of its inspection or requalification

operation. The person seeking approval must bear the cost of the

inspection. A list of approved independent inspection agencies is

available from the Associate Administrator at the address listed in

Sec. 107.705. Assistance in obtaining an approval may be requested from

the same address.

(c) Application for approval. If the inspection performed by an

independent inspection agency is completed with satisfactory results,

the applicant must submit a letter of recommendation from the

independent inspection agency, an inspection report, and an application

that must contain the information prescribed in Sec. 107.705(a). In

addition, the application must contain the following information: the

name of the facility manager; the DOT specification/exemption cylinders

that will be inspected, tested, repaired, or rebuilt at the facility; a

certification that the facility will operate in compliance with the

applicable requirements of subchapter C of this chapter; and the date

and the signature of the person making the certification.

(d) Issuance of requalifier identification number (RIN). The

Associate Administrator issues a RIN as evidence of approval to

requalify DOT specification/exemption cylinders if it is determined,

based on the applicant's submission and other available information,

that the applicant's qualifications and, when applicable, facility are

adequate to perform the requested functions in accordance with the

criteria prescribed in subpart C of part 180 of this chapter.

(e) Expiration of RIN. Unless otherwise provided in the issuance

letter, an approval expires five years from the date of issuance,

provided that the applicant's facility and qualifications are

maintained at or above the level observed at the time of inspection by

the independent inspection agency, or at the date of the certification

in the application for approval, for facilities only performing

inspections made under Sec. 180.209(g) of this chapter.

(f) Exceptions. Notwithstanding requirements in paragraphs (b) and

(c) of this section, a person who only performs inspections in

accordance with Sec. 180.209(g) of this chapter must submit a request

which, in addition to the information prescribed in Sec. 107.705(a)

contains; the facility manager for each location in which

requalifications would be performed; the DOT specification/exemption

cylinders that will be inspected at the facility; a certification that

the facility will operate in compliance with the applicable

requirements of subchapter C of this chapter; a certification that the

persons performing inspections have been trained and have the

information contained in each applicable CGA pamphlet incorporated by

reference in Sec. 171.7 of this chapter that applies to the

requalifiers activities; and the date and the signature of the person

making the certification. Each person shall comply with the applicable

requirements in this subpart. In addition, the procedural requirements

in subpart H of this part apply to the filing, processing and

termination of an approval issued under this subpart.

Sec. 107.807 Approval of non-domestic chemical analyses and tests.

(a) General. A person who seeks to manufacture DOT specification or

exemption cylinders outside the United States must seek an approval

from the Associate Administrator to perform the chemical analyses and

tests of those cylinders outside the United States.

(b) Application for approval. Each applicant must submit an

application that must contain the information prescribed in

Sec. 107.705(a). In addition, the application must contain the

following information: the name, address and a description of each

facility at which cylinders are to be manufactured and chemical

analyses and tests are to be performed; complete details concerning the

dimension, materials of construction, wall thickness, water capacity,

shape, type of joints, location and size of openings and other

pertinent physical characteristics of each specification or exemption

cylinder for which approval is being requested, including calculations

for cylinder wall stress and wall thickness which may be shown on a

drawing or on separate sheets attached to a descriptive drawing; the

name of the independent inspection agency to be used; and the date and

the signature of the person making the certification.

(c) Facility inspections. Upon the request of the Associate

Administrator, the applicant shall allow the Associate Administrator

for HMS or the Associate Administrator's designee to inspect the

applicant's cylinder manufacturing and testing facilities and records,

and must provide such materials and cylinders for analyses and tests as

the Associate Administrator may specify. The applicant or holder shall

bear the cost of the initial and subsequent inspections, analyses, and

tests.

PART 171--GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

4. The authority citation for part 171 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec. 171.2 [Amended]

5. In Sec. 171.2, paragraph (d)(3) would be amended by removing the

wording ``retest or exemption markings'' and adding in its place the

wording ``retest, exemption or requalification identification number

(RIN) markings''.

6. In Sec. 171.7, in the table in paragraph (a)(3), new entries

would be added in alphanumeric sequence to read as follows:

Sec. 171.7 Reference material.

(a) * * *

(3) Table of material incorporated by reference. * * *

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

Source and name of material 49 CFR reference

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

* * * *

* * *

American Society for Nondestructive Testing,

PO Box 28518, 1711 Arlingate Lane, Columbus,

OH 43228-0518

ASNT Recommended Practice SNT-TC-1A, 1992 Part 178, subpart C,

Appendix B.

* * * *

* * *

American Society for Testing and Materials

[[Page 58480]]

* * * *

* * *

ASTM B 221-96 Standard Specification for 178.46(a)(4), Table 2.

Aluminum and Aluminum-Alloy Extruded

Bars, Rods, Wire, Profiles, and Tubes.

ASTM B 221M-96 Standard Specification for Part 178, Subpart C,

Aluminum and Aluminum-Alloy Extruded Appendix A, Table 2,

Bars, Rods, Wire, Profiles, and Tubes. Aluminum.

* * * *

* * *

ASTM E 10-96 Standard Test Method for 178.69.

Brinell Hardness of Metallic Materials.

ASTM E 18-94 Standard Test Methods for 178.70.

Rockwell Hardness and Rockwell

Superficial Hardness of Metallic

Materials.

* * * *

* * *

ASTM E 165-95 Standard Test Method for 178.69.

Liquid Penetrant Examination.

ASTM E 213-93 Standard Practice for 178.71; 178.72; 178.73;

Ultrasonic Examination of Metal Pipe and Part 178, Subpart C,

Tubing. Appendix B; 180.215.

* * * *

* * *

ASTM E 399-90e1 Standard Test Method for 178.73.

Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of

Metallic Materials.

* * * *

* * *

ASTM E 709-95 Standard Guide for Magnetic 178.69.

Particle Examination.

ASTM E 797-95 Standard Practice for Part 178, Subpart C,

Measuring Thickness by Manual Ultrasonic Appendix B; 180.215.

Pulse-Echo Straight-Beam Method.

* * * *

* * *

Compressed Gas Association, Inc.

* * * *

* * *

CGA Pamphlet C-1, Methods for Hydrostatic 178.69; 178.81; 180.205.

Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders,

1996.

* * * *

* * *

CGA Pamphlet P-20, Standard for the 173.115.

Classification of Toxic Gas Mixtures,

1995.

* * * *

* * *

CGA Pamphlet S-7, Method for Selecting 173.301.

Pressure Relief Devices for Compressed

Gas Mixtures in Cylinders, 1996.

* * * *

* * *

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

Sec. 171.7 [Amended]

7. In addition, in Sec. 171.7, in the table in paragraph (a)(3),

the following changes would be made:

a. In the entry ASTM A240/A240M-94b, the wording ``A240M-94b''

would be revised to read ``A240M-96a.''

b. The entry ASTM A 388-67 would be removed.

c. In the entry ASTM B 557-84, in column 2, the reference

``178.69;'' would be added, in numeric order.

d. In the entry ASTM E 8-89, the wording ``E 8-89'' would be

revised to read ``E 8-96a'' and in column 2, the references ``178.36;

178.37; 178.38; 178.39;'', ``178.45;'', ``178.50; 178.51;'',

``178.55;'', ``178.61;'', and ``178.68;'' would be removed and

``178.69;'' would be added, in numerical order.

e. In the entry ASTM E 23-60, in column 1, the wording ``E 23-60''

would be revised to read ``E 23-96'' and in column 2, the reference

``178.69;'' would be added, in numeric order.

f. In the entry ASTM E 112-88, the wording ``E 112-88'' would be

revised to read ``E 112-96'' and in column 2, the reference ``;178.69''

would be added, in numeric order.

g. In the entry ASTM E 290-92, in column 2, the references

``;178.69; 178.72'' would be added, in numeric order.

h. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-3, the year ``1975'' would be

revised to read ``1994'' and in column 2, the references ``178.50;

178.51;'', ``178.54;'', ``178.61;'', ``178.68'' would be removed and

``178.69;'', ``178.81;'', ``180.211'' would be added, in numeric order.

i. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-5, in column 2, the reference

``173.302'' would be removed and ``173.302a'' would be added, in its

place.

j. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-6, in column 2, the reference

``173.34; 180.519'' would be removed and the references ``173.198;

180.205; 180.209; 180.211.'' would be added, in its place.

k. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-6.1, in column 2, the reference

``173.34'' would be removed and the references ``180.205; 180.209''

would be added, in its place.

l. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-6.2, in column 2, the reference

``173.34'' would be removed and the reference ``180.205'' would be

added, in its place.

m. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-6.3, in column 2, the reference

``173.34'' would be removed and the references ``180.205; 180.209''

would be added, in its place.

n. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-8, in column 2, the reference

``173.34'' would be removed and the reference ``180.205'' would be

added, in its place.

o. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-11, in column 2, the reference

``178.35'' would be removed and the references ``178.35; 178.69'' would

be added, in its place.

p. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-12, in column 2, the reference

``173.34;'' would be removed and the references 173.301;'' and

``;180.205'' would be added, in numeric order.

q. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-13, in column 2, the reference

``173.34;'' would be removed and the references ``; 180.205;'', and

``180.209.'' would be added, in numeric order.

r. In the entry CGA Pamphlet C-14, in column 2, the reference

``173.34'' would

[[Page 58481]]

be removed and the reference ``173.301'' would be added, in its place.

s. In the entry CGA Pamphlet S-1.1, in column 2, the reference

``173.34'' would be removed and the references ``173.301; 173.304a.''

would be added, in its place.

8. In Sec. 171.8, definitions for ``Metric-marked cylinder'' and

``Nonmetric-marked cylinder'' would be added, in alphabetical order, to

read as follows:

Sec. 171.8 Definitions and abbreviations.

* * * * *

Metric-marked cylinder means a cylinder manufactured to the DOT 3M,

3ALM, 3FM or 4M specification prescribed in Secs. 178.69 through 178.81

of this subchapter.

* * * * *

Nonmetric-marked cylinder means a cylinder manufactured to a DOT

specification prescribed in Secs. 178.35 through 178.68 of this

subchapter that was in effect on [DATE PRIOR TO EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE

FINAL RULE].

* * * * *

Sec. 171.8 [Amended]

9. In addition, in Sec. 171.8, in the definition of ``Filling

density'', paragraph (1) would be amended by revising the reference

``Sec. 173.304(a)(2)Table Note 1'' to read ``Sec. 173.304a(a)(2) Table

Note 1''.

10. In Sec. 171.12, paragraph (b)(15) would be revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 171.12 Import and export shipments.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(15) Cylinders not manufactured to a DOT specification must conform

to the requirements of Sec. 173.301(j) through (l) of this subchapter

or, for Canadian manufactured cylinders, to the requirements of

Sec. 171.12a(b)(13).

* * * * *

11. In Sec. 171.12a, in paragraph (b)(13) a new sentence would be

added at the end of the paragraph, and paragraphs (b)(13)(i) through

(b)(13)(v) would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 171.12a Canadian shipments and packagings.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(13) * * * However, a cylinder made in Canada that meets the

following conditions is authorized for the transportation of a

hazardous material within the United States:

(i) The cylinder was manufactured on or after January 1, 1977;

(ii) During the manufacturing process, the cylinder was marked with

an approval number and an inspector's mark authorized by TDG or by its

predecessor, the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport

Commission (CTC), in its regulations for the Transport of Dangerous

Commodities by Rail and was marked ``CTC'' or ``TDG'';

(iii) The cylinder is in full conformance with the specifications

prescribed by the TDG regulations;

(iv) The cylinder has been requalified under a program authorized

by the Canadian regulations or requalified in accordance with subpart C

of part 180 of this subchapter within the prescribed requalification

period; and

(v) At the time the requalification is performed, in addition to

the markings prescribed in Sec. 180.211 of this subchapter, the

cylinder is marked ``DOT/'' immediately before the Canadian

specification marking.

* * * * *

PART 172--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

12. The authority citation for Part 172 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec. 172.101 [Amended]

13. Section 172.101, in the Hazardous Materials Table, the

following changes would be made:

a. For the entry ``Cyanogen'', in Column (8b), the reference

``192'' would be removed and ``304'' would be added in its place.

b. For the entry ``Germane'', in Column (8b), the reference ``192''

would be removed and ``302'' would be added in its place.

c. For the entry ``Iron pentacarbonyl'', in Column (8b), the

reference ``192'' would be removed and ``226'' would be added in its

place.

PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND

PACKAGINGS

14. The authority citation for Part 173 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.

Sec. 173.34 [Removed]

15. Section 173.34 would be removed.

16. Section 173.40 would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 173.40 General packaging requirements for toxic materials

packaged in cylinders.

When this section is referenced for a hazardous material elsewhere

in this subchapter, the following requirements are applicable to

cylinders used for that material:

(a) Authorized cylinders. A cylinder must conform to one of the

specifications for cylinders in subpart C of part 178 of this

subchapter, except that Specification 8, 8AL, and 39 cylinders are not

authorized. After [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] DOT 3AL cylinders

made of aluminum alloy 6351 may not be filled and offered for

transportation or transported with a Division 2.3, Zone A or B

material, a Division 6.1, Zone A or B material or any liquid that meets

the definition of Division 6.1 and meets criteria for Packing Group I,

Hazard Zones A or B, as specified in Sec. 173.133.

(b) Closures. Each cylinder containing a Hazard Zone A material

must be closed with a plug or valve conforming to the following:

(1) Each plug or valve must have a taper-threaded connection

directly to the cylinder and be capable of withstanding the test

pressure of the cylinder;

(2) Each valve must be of the packless type with non-perforated

diaphragm, except that for corrosive materials, a

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.