{"operation":"document","citation":"67 FR 51626","title":"Hazardous Materials: Requirements for Maintenance, Requalification, Repair and Use of DOT Specification Cylinders","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Research and Special Programs Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-08-08","effective_on":"2002-10-01","summary":"In this final rule, RSPA is amending the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations applicable to the maintenance, requalification, repair, and use of DOT specification cylinders. In addition, RSPA is adopting changes to revise the requirements for approval of cylinder requalifiers, independent inspection agencies, and non-domestic chemical analysis and tests. Further, RSPA is removing authorization for the manufacture of DOT specification cylinders made with aluminum alloy 6351-T6. This action is being taken to simplify the regulations, respond to petitions for rulemaking, address recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board, and enhance the safe transportation of hazardous materials in cylinders.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-02-15977.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-02-15977.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-02-15977","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/08/08/02-15977/hazardous-materials-requirements-for-maintenance-requalification-repair-and-use-of-dot-specification","body":"Federal Register, Volume 67 Issue 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2002) [Federal Register Volume 67, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2002)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 51626-51668] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 02-15977] [[Page 51625]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part II Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Research and Special Programs Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Part 107 et al. Hazardous Materials: Requirements for Maintenance, Requalification, Repair and Use of DOT Specification Cylinders; Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations [[Page 51626]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, 179, and 180 [Docket No. RSPA-01-10373 (HM-220D)] RIN 2137-AD58 Hazardous Materials: Requirements for Maintenance, Requalification, Repair and Use of DOT Specification Cylinders AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this final rule, RSPA is amending the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations applicable to the maintenance, requalification, repair, and use of DOT specification cylinders. In addition, RSPA is adopting changes to revise the requirements for approval of cylinder requalifiers, independent inspection agencies, and non-domestic chemical analysis and tests. Further, RSPA is removing authorization for the manufacture of DOT specification cylinders made with aluminum alloy 6351-T6. This action is being taken to simplify the regulations, respond to petitions for rulemaking, address recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board, and enhance the safe transportation of hazardous materials in cylinders. DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2002. Incorporation by Reference Date: The incorporation by reference of publications listed in this final rule has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 1, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Freeman or Mark Toughiry, (202) 366-4545, Office of Hazardous Materials Technology, Research and Special Programs Administration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On October 30, 1998, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA, we) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) under Docket HM-220 (63 FR 58460). In the NPRM, we proposed to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to: (1) Establish four new DOT cylinder specifications to replace the 12 current seamless and welded cylinder specifications; (2) revise the requirements for maintenance, requalification, repair, and use of all DOT specification cylinders; and (3) discontinue the manufacture of certain specification cylinders. We took this action because many of our current cylinder specifications have not been updated since their adoption into the regulations over 50 years ago. The proposed changes were intended to enhance operational controls and transportation safety by incorporating into the HMR new manufacturing and testing technologies and clarifying existing regulatory requirements. In addition, the proposed changes addressed three National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations for improving the safety of cylinders in transportation. Finally, the proposed changes would have eased the regulatory burden on the regulated industry by incorporating the provisions of more than 30 exemptions into the HMR. More than 140 commenters submitted over 200 comments in response to the NPRM, including representatives of cylinder and equipment manufacturers, requalifiers, refillers and users, trade associations, gas producers, distributors, shippers, carriers, emergency responders, representatives of federal and state governmental agencies, private consultants, and the general public. In addition, we held a series of public meetings to obtain comments. Many commenters objected to the proposed new metric-marked cylinder specifications, identified as 3M, 3ALM, 3FM, and 4M. Commenters also opposed the proposed requirement for these new metric-marked cylinders and certain cylinders manufactured to the current specifications, that is, non-metric marked cylinders, to be requalified by ultrasonic examination. These commenters suggested we allow continued manufacture of cylinders to the current DOT specifications and revise the current requirements to include certain enhancements from the metric-marked cylinder proposals. These commenters preferred we wait until after the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) cylinder standards were completed and adopted into the United Nation (UN) Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Model Regulations) before we considered incorporating new specification requirements into the HMR. Based on the merits of the comments received, we agree the proposed metric-marked cylinder standards and related proposals that were based on the draft ISO standard should not be adopted. Because of significant opposition to many of the proposals in the 1998 NPRM, we published a notice in the Federal Register on February 13, 2002 (67 FR 6667), terminating rulemaking action under Docket HM-220. The termination notice announced that we were withdrawing the proposals applicable to metric-marked cylinders and ultrasonic examination. We worked closely with the UN Committee of Experts as it developed an international cylinder standard based on the above-referenced ISO requirements. The new international standard was adopted as part of the UN Model Regulations in December 2000. We will address issues related to the harmonization of the U.S. cylinder regulations with the UN Model Regulations in a future rulemaking. The proposals in the 1998 NPRM relating to maintenance, requalification, repair, and use of DOT specification cylinders and approval of cylinder requalifiers, independent inspection agencies, and non-domestic chemical analyses and tests are addressed in this final rule, which has been designated HM- 220D (RSPA-01-10373). The 1998 NPRM proposed to require all cylinders manufactured or rebuilt to the proposed new metric-marked cylinder specifications to undergo inspection and certification by an Independent Inspection Agency rather than an employee of the manufacturing company. This proposal responded to an NTSB recommendation (I-90-009) that RSPA require independent inspection of new and reconditioned low pressure cylinders consistent with current independent inspection requirements for high pressure cylinders. Because we are not adopting the metric- marked cylinder specifications in this final rule, we are not adopting the proposed independent inspection requirements. However, we will address this issue in a rulemaking to harmonize the U.S. cylinder regulations with the UN Model Regulations that we plan to initiate in the near future. II. Overview of Changes in this Final Rule In this final rule, we are amending the HMR to: (1) Prohibit a filled cylinder with a specified service life from being offered for transportation in commerce after its service life has expired. (2) Remove authorization for the manufacture of DOT specification cylinders using aluminum alloy 6351-T6. Cylinders manufactured with this aluminum alloy have a greater risk of failure than other aluminum cylinders. (3) Incorporate by reference new and updated Compressed Gas Association (CGA) standards and updated American [[Page 51627]] Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. (4) Require each person who performs a requalification function that requires marking of an inspection or retest date on a cylinder to have approval from the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety (Associate Administrator). (5) Standardize requirements for repair and rebuilding of DOT-4 series cylinders, other than the DOT 4L. (6) Allow the application of requalification markings on cylinders by using alternative methods that produce durable, legible marks. (7) Require pressure relief devices on all DOT-3 series specification cylinders to be set at test pressure with a tolerance of -10% to +0 beginning at the first requalification due on or after the effective date of this final rule. In addition, we are consolidating requirements for obtaining approval to be a cylinder requalifier, independent inspection agency, or to have chemical tests or analyses performed outside the United States on cylinders manufactured outside the United States in a new Subpart I in Part 107. The safety of cylinders constructed with aluminum alloy 6351-T6 was first raised in a safety advisory and NPRM published in 1987 under Docket HM-176A. With publication of this final rule, further action under Docket HM-176A is terminated. III. Section-by-Section Review The following is a section-by-section review of the changes adopted in this final rule and, where applicable, a discussion of comments received. Part 107 Section 107.1 This final rule adopts the proposal in the 1998 NPRM to remove the reference to a cylinder retester who is registered pursuant to Sec. 173.34(a)(1) from the definition of ``registration.'' Commenters did not address this issue. Subpart I The 1998 NPRM proposed to add a new subpart I to Part 107 to consolidate procedures currently in Secs. 173.34(e)(2), 173.300a, and 173.300b of the HMR for obtaining approval from the Associate Administrator. The approval procedures address requirements for cylinder requalifiers and independent inspection agencies (IIAs), and to have chemical tests or analyses performed outside the United States on DOT specification cylinders manufactured outside the United States. Commenters generally supported this proposal. This final rule adopts the proposed consolidation in Part 107, with the revisions noted below. Section 107.803 Prescribes application procedures for approval or renewal as an IIA. These procedures permit an approved IIA to perform other functions relating to the cylinder requalification requirements. The criteria permit the approval of any person or organization technically competent to perform cylinder requalification functions and 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. We are not adopting a proposal to permit persons or organizations approved by foreign governments to perform these functions. This latter proposal was contingent upon our adopting the metric-marked cylinder specifications proposed in the NPRM. Section 107.805 Sets forth application procedures for a person seeking approval to perform periodic cylinder requalifications. The NPRM proposed to broaden the current approval requirement to apply to any person who performs a requalification function after which the cylinder is required to be marked with a date. The affected requalification functions include visual inspections, pressure tests, repairs, and rebuilding of cylinders. The new approval procedures will enhance the accountability of the cylinder requalification process. This change was supported by most commenters. However, the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) and some of its members opposed the proposal because it would require persons who perform only visual inspections of cylinders to obtain DOT approval. NPGA stated that this new approval requirement is burdensome, unenforceable, and an excessive response to a safety problem only identifiable through individual instances of egregious cylinder wear. NPGA also said that the proposal could potentially affect tens of thousands of individuals and many small facilities. We disagree. As we stated in the NPRM, this change ensures the accountability of a person performing visual requalifications. In addition, this change provides RSPA with the authority to revoke or suspend a person's approval for demonstrated noncompliance with the requalification requirements. Also, if an applicant must certify it has the ability to perform requalifications, each applicant's awareness of the importance of compliance should be heightened. We estimate the number of affected requalifiers to be 7,200. Under the provisions in this final rule, these requalifers must submit a letter containing information on their qualifications and the location at which they work. The regulatory burden imposed by this new requirement is minimal. Moreover, this final rule includes a transition period of one year to allow sufficient time for affected individuals to obtain the requisite approvals. As requested by commenters, we are making editorial changes to paragraph (f) to recognize that visual cylinder requalifications are often performed at the owner's or end-user's facility rather than the requalifier's facility. Because this final rule expands the approval provisions to apply to repairers and rebuilders, we are replacing the terms ``retester'' and ``retester identification number'' in this final rule with the terms ``requalifier'' and ``requalifier identification number,'' respectively. Section 107.807 Sets forth the application procedures, currently in Sec. 173.300b, 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. These procedures are unchanged from current requirements. Part 171 Section 171.2. In this final rule, we are adopting the NPRM proposal to revise paragraph (d)(3). The revision clarifies that no person may mark a requalifier identification number (RIN) on a cylinder that has not been requalified according to the applicable requirements. Section 171.6. We are revising certain section references in the table of OMB control numbers for consistency with this final rule. Section 171.7 The NPRM proposed to revise this section to incorporate by reference the latest editions of previously approved CGA Pamphlets and ASTM standards and certain additional ASTM and CGA standards. In this final rule, we are incorporating the 1999 edition of the ASTM standards for tension testing of metallic materials; the 1999 edition of the ASTM standard specification for heat-resisting chromium and chromium-nickel stainless steel plate, sheet, and [[Page 51628]] strip for pressure vessels; and the 1998 edition of the ASTM standards for notched bar impact testing of metallic materials instead of the 1996 editions proposed in the NPRM. We reviewed the more recent editions and identified no significant differences from the 1996 editions. In addition, we are incorporating the 1997 edition of the ASTM standard specification for liquefied petroleum gases (see discussion under ``Section 180.203'' below). We are also incorporating the 1998 edition of the ASTM standard for ultrasonic examination of metal pipe and tubing instead of the 1993 edition proposed in the NPRM. We reviewed the more recent edition and found no significant differences from the 1993 edition. The ASTM standard for ultrasonic examination replaces a 1967 standard that is no longer available and applies to the manufacture of specification DOT 3T stainless steel cylinders. We are not incorporating the ASTM standards addressing the metric-marked cylinder proposals in the NPRM. Further, we are not incorporating CGA pamphlet C-1, ``Methods for Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders,'' 1996 edition. It is our understanding that CGA is in the process of completely revising the C-1 standard. We will consider incorporating the revised C-1 standard in a future rulemaking. Section 171.12 As proposed in the NPRM, we are revising paragraph (b)(15) to include a reference to a provision on Canadian manufactured cylinders contained in current Sec. 171.12a(b)(13). Part 172 Section 172.101 In the Sec. 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table, for the entries ``Cyanogen,'' ``Germane,'' and ``Iron Pentacarbonyl,'' we are revising the references in column (8b) to specify packaging authorization sections consistent with the materials' toxic properties. Commenters did not specifically address this proposal. Part 173 Section 173.34 We are adopting the changes proposed in the NPRM and supported by most commenters to move the provisions in this section to Subpart I of Part 107, Sec. 173.301, and Subpart B of Part 180, as appropriate, and remove Sec. 173.34. We are removing all references to Sec. 173.34 in the HMR, and replacing them with the appropriate new section references. Section 173.40 We are adopting the proposed change to paragraph (a) of this section to prohibit the use of DOT 3AL cylinders made of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 for Hazard Zone A materials. The major domestic cylinder manufacturers of DOT 3AL cylinders discontinued using aluminum alloy 6351-T6 in specification cylinders before July 1990. The prohibition on the use of cylinders made of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 for Hazard Zone A materials is effective on October 1, 2002. After that date, cylinders made of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 may not be filled and offered for transportation in toxic inhalation hazard service. In this final rule, we are adding a provision to permit cylinders filled before October 1, 2002, to be offered for transportation and transported to their ultimate destinations until April 1, 2003. When necessary, cylinders containing unused gas may be returned to the filler. Cylinders prohibited for use under this provision are seamless aluminum cylinders marked ``DOT 3AL'', including exemption cylinders authorized under exemption numbers DOT-E 6498, 7042, 8107, 8364, and 8422, and composite cylinders authorized under exemption numbers DOT-E 7235, 8023, and 8115. Several commenters requested we add a table in the HMR to identify all cylinders made of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 by date of manufacture, serial number, manufacturer, etc. We agree that a need exists to identify all affected cylinders. We are making this information available from the Associate Administrator and at our web site Homepage at `` hazmat.dot.gov ''. Making the information available as a separate document permits greater flexibility in de-listing cylinders removed from hazardous material service. We are adopting paragraph (b) to include current requirements for outage and pressure in cylinders used for toxic materials. This paragraph was inadvertently omitted from the NPRM. We are not adopting proposed paragraph (c)(1) to require cylinders containing Hazard Zone A and B materials to meet puncture resistance criteria. A number of commenters opposed the puncture-resistance requirement for Zone B materials. These commenters said that Zone B materials have an excellent safety record in transportation, and that the proposed requirements would pose a significant and unjustified financial burden for transporters of Hazard Zone B materials. Several commenters opposed the proposal to add a puncture-resistance requirement even for Hazard Zone A materials. One commenter noted the NPRM did not include statistics on the incidence of cylinder punctures. Other commenters stated that DOT specification cylinders such as the 3A and 3AA have had excellent safety records for a number of years, and there is no substantial evidence to support the need for puncture- resistance testing. Based on these comments, we are not adopting the proposed puncture-resistance requirements. However, minimum thickness requirements for cylinders used to transport Hazard Zone A or B material remain in effect. Further, this final rule includes a new performance requirement, applicable to all cylinders, for metal attachments to be constructed or protected so as to prevent the likelihood of puncturing or damaging hazardous materials packages transported in the same transport conveyance. In the NPRM, we sought comments on whether the current Hazard Zone A closure requirements in paragraph (c) should be extended to Hazard Zone B materials. Several commenters opposed such an extension. They said that the change is excessive and unjustified, and would require changing the valving on many cylinders used to transport Hazard Zone B materials. Based on these comments, we are not adopting the Hazard Zone A closure requirements for Hazard Zone B materials in this final rule. We are adopting new paragraph (d) to specify cylinder valve protection requirements for Hazard Zone A and B materials. None of the commenters opposed extending the valve protection requirements to Hazard Zone B materials. Indeed, one commenter stated its company is currently shipping both Hazard Zone A and B materials in cylinders conforming to the current valve protection drop test requirement for Hazard Zone A materials. In this final rule, we are revising the valve protection requirements to require that when a protective cap is used, it must be made of metal. This change responds to a commenter who pointed out that current Sec. 173.301(h)(2)(i) provides for equipping a cylinder with a securely attached metal cap. The commenter stated that nonmetallic caps should not be permitted under Sec. 173.40. We agree, and have included the change. Several commenters suggested the protection device should be designed to protect against leakage in the event of valve deformation rather than to prevent deformation or breakage of the valve. We disagree. A deformed or broken valve presents a potential safety hazard that could affect the integrity of the [[Page 51629]] cylinder. One commenter asked for a better definition of the term ``deformation.'' In this context, ``deformation'' means a valve that is bent, distorted, mangled, misshapen, twisted, warped, or in a similar condition. We have added a definition of ``deformation'' in this final rule. A commenter asked us to revise the drop height requirement from 2 meters (6.5 feet) to 1.2 meters (4 feet) for consistency with ISO Standard 11117 (Gas Cylinders--Valve Protection Caps and Valve Guards for Industrial and Medical Gas Cylinders--Design, Construction, and Tests). We disagree. Because these cylinders are used to transport Division 2.3 materials in Hazard Zone A or B, they must be able to survive severe handling and abuse without leakage of contents. Therefore, a more stringent drop test requirement is warranted. Further, the ISO Standard 11117 drop test requires the cylinder to be filled with water, while the drop test adopted in this final rule requires the cylinder to be empty. Since the tests are conducted under different conditions, the drop heights must be different to assure meaningful test results. We are adopting paragraph (e), which restates the current prohibition against manifolding or interconnecting cylinders containing toxic materials. Section 173.115 As proposed in the NPRM, this section permits LC50 values for mixtures to be determined using CGA pamphlet P-20 and adds a definition for ``refrigerant or dispersant gas.'' Section 173.163 A number of commenters opposed the proposal in the NPRM to require cylinders used for hydrogen fluoride to be requalified by ultrasonic examination only. They said that there is no safety justification for the proposal, and it will significantly increase costs for the regulated industry. Commenters noted that ultrasonic examination requires sophisticated equipment and highly trained personnel. They expressed concern that retest facilities do not have infrastructure in place to accommodate the proposed examination procedures. Because of commenter concerns, we are not adopting the ultrasonic examination proposal in this final rule. We are retaining the current requirement for an external visual inspection in place of the hydrostatic test and internal visual inspection. We will continue to permit the use of ultrasonic examination under the exemption program. Issues related to ultrasonic testing will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking. Section 173.192 We are revising the section title to reflect that the requirements in this section apply only to Hazard Zone A gases, as proposed. In addition, we are extending the current restriction in Sec. 173.192(a)(3), which limits transportation of DOT 3AL cylinders in arsine and phosphine service to highway and rail, to include all Hazard Zone A gases. Thus, Hazard Zone A gases in 3AL cylinders may only be transported by highway or rail. CGA and another commenter requested that we authorize transportation of DOT 3AL cylinders by vessel and by cargo aircraft. CGA stated that prohibiting such transportation places U.S. companies at an economic disadvantage in the world market. We have some reservations about the CGA comment. Aluminum undergoes a marked reduction in tensile strength when subjected to high temperatures. This occurs at much lower temperatures than for steel cylinders. The potential consequences of a fire on board a vessel or aircraft are more serious than a fire occurring on a truck or rail car. The release of toxic vapors in the confined space of a vessel hold or cargo aircraft compartment could have significant adverse consequences. However, on August 30, 2001, we issued an exemption (DOT-E-12339) that permits the transportation by cargo vessel of DOT 3AL cylinders (6061 aluminum alloy) containing various Division 2.1 and 2.3 gases. The cylinders must be contained inside steel freight containers. We will evaluate the safety record of cylinders transported on cargo vessels under this exemption, and consider incorporating its terms into a regulation of general applicability in a future rulemaking. Also, we are revising paragraph (c), as proposed, to permit the use of alternative leakage tests having equivalent levels of sensitivity as the current water bath leakage test, upon written approval from the Associate Administrator. Currently, paragraph (c) requires a cylinder containing any amount of phosgene gas to be subjected to a water bath leakage test before it is offered for transportation. CGA noted that the water bath test is conducted at 150 deg. F, and the normal filling densities and liquid full conditions for phosgene cylinders are based on 130 deg. F. For this reason, CGA suggested that we should add a precautionary statement to warn persons that a cylinder filled to 125% of capacity could experience an overfill condition when it is heated to 150 deg. F. Alternatively, CGA suggested the water bath test should be conducted at 130 deg. F. We disagree. The water bath requirements for phosgene cylinders are long-standing regulatory requirements. However, to accommodate CGA's concerns, we are adding a precautionary safety statement to alert requalifiers. Section 173.198 We are making a minor editorial change to paragraph (a). Section 173.226 Currently, Division 6.1, Hazard Zone A materials may be shipped in any DOT specification cylinder, except DOT 8, 8AL, and 39. The NPRM proposed a revision to paragraph (a) to permit materials that are poisonous by inhalation (PIH materials) in Hazard Zone A to be transported only in seamless specification cylinders conforming to the requirements of Sec. 173.40. A commenter requested that we continue to permit the use of welded cylinders for PIH materials. We disagree. Because of the inherent risk involved in the transportation of PIH materials, they should only be permitted in cylinders providing the highest level of safety. Therefore, this final rule adopts the change as proposed in the NPRM. This change also provides consistency in packaging assignments with current Sec. 173.192, which authorizes only seamless specification cylinders for Packing Group I materials. Section 173.227 We are adopting the proposal in the NPRM to revise paragraph (a). The revision authorizes only seamless and welded specification cylinders conforming to the requirements in Sec. 173.40 for transportation of PIH materials in Hazard Zone B. Section 173.228 As proposed in the NPRM, we are revising paragraph (a) to require bromine pentafluoride and bromine trifluoride, which are Hazard Zone A materials, to be transported only in seamless specification cylinders that conform to the requirements in Sec. 173.40. Sections 173.300a-173.300c We are moving the provisions contained in these sections to new Subpart I of Part 107. We are deleting Secs. 173.300a, 173.300b, and 173.300c. Sections 173.301-173.301b We are revising Sec. 173.301 to specify the general shipper requirements for the use of specification cylinders. These requirements include general prefill requirements, maintenance and legibility of markings, pressure relief devices (PRDs), valve protection, manifolding of cylinders, and charging [[Page 51630]] of foreign cylinders. We are removing the cargo tank manifolding requirements currently in Sec. 173.301(d), and placing them with other cargo tank requirements in Sec. 173.315. A derivation table showing the relocation of the requirements appeared in Part X of the preamble in the NPRM. Paragraph (a) includes general cylinder qualification requirements. We are revising the wording in paragraph (a)(2) in response to several commenters who stated the proposed wording implied that defective PRDs could be repaired. This was not our intent. The wording is revised to state that, in some cases, the cylinder may be repaired and requalified if the work is performed according to Part 180. In the NPRM, we proposed to place in paragraph (a)(4) a current provision authorizing the use of a cylinder with a higher marked pressure limit when a cylinder of the same specification, but a lower marked pressure limit, is prescribed. We proposed no change to the wording. A commenter suggested that, when a cylinder with a higher marked pressure limit is used for Division 2.2 gases, the PRD setting should be based on the lowest acceptable test pressure of the cylinder for the particular gas service. We disagree. This is a long-standing regulatory requirement with a demonstrated safety benefit. If a higher pressure cylinder is chosen for a particular service, another user may not be aware the PRD setting has been lowered. If the cylinder were over-heated or over-pressurized, a premature release of product could result. We are making a minor editorial change in the second sentence of paragraph (a)(5). The sentence in the NPRM stated ``This requirement does not apply to a cylinder filled before the requalification due date''. In response to a comment, the sentence is revised for clarification to read ``This prohibition does not apply * * *'' Another commenter suggested the first sentence should be revised to read ``No person may fill a cylinder overdue for periodic requalification with a hazardous material.'' We disagree. HMR requirements for filling a cylinder do not apply unless the cylinder is offered for transportation. We are revising paragraph (a)(6), as proposed, to prohibit the offering for transportation and transportation in commerce of a filled cylinder after its specified service life has expired. For example, DOT 3HT cylinders would be prohibited from transportation 24 years after the date of the original test or 4,380 pressurizations, whichever occurs first (see current Sec. 173.34(e)(15)(ii)(C)). Similarly, aluminum lined, hoop wrapped, and fiber reinforced plastic composite cylinders would be prohibited from transportation after 15 years. Several commenters requested a revision to allow the transportation of affected non-leaking cylinders for reprocessing or disposing of the cylinder contents. Another commenter requested we require the cylinders to be stamped as condemned or be rendered unserviceable when the authorized service life has expired. We agree, and have adopted the suggested changes in this final rule. We are revising the wording in proposed paragraph (a)(7) to prohibit the pressure of the hazardous material at 55 deg. C (131 deg. F) from exceeding 5/4 of the service pressure of the cylinder. Commenters pointed out the ``5/4'' was omitted from the text in the NPRM. This was an oversight. We have corrected the text in this final rule. Paragraph (b) sets forth requirements for cylinder markings and is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. Paragraph (c) specifies requirements for toxic gases and mixtures and is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. Paragraph (d) addresses gases capable of combining chemically. In this final rule, we are prohibiting the use of DOT 3AL cylinders made of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 for gases having pyrophoric properties. Commenters requested we allow time for transporting the affected cylinders for reprocessing or disposal of the cylinder's contents. We agree time should be provided for transporting the cylinders. We are providing a transition period of six months after the effective date of the final rule to provide for transportation of cylinders filled before the effective date of the final rule. As proposed in the NPRM, we are adopting paragraph (e). This paragraph restates the current requirement to prohibit a cylinder from being offered for transportation unless it was filled by the cylinder owner or with the owner's consent. Paragraph (f) sets forth requirements for PRDs. The NPRM restated the current provision in Sec. 173.34(d) to require a cylinder filled with gas and transported in commerce to be equipped with one or more PRDs sized and selected in accordance with CGA Pamphlets S-1.1 and S-7. Compliance with paragraph 9.1.1.1 of CGA Pamphlet S-1.1, which requires periodic replacement of a PRD, is not required. Several commenters objected to this provision, stating compliance with paragraph 9.1.1.1 should be mandatory. These commenters cited data generated by Transport Canada and industry tests that suggest a large percentage of PRDs fail to operate as designed. As we stated in the 1998 NPRM (63 FR 58465), we have previously proposed voluntary compliance with paragraph 9.1.1.1 of CGA Pamphlet S-1.1. Commenters generally opposed this proposal, citing its cost and the lack of incident data justifying the requirement. In the NPRM, we asked for data and comments on the cost, effectiveness, and need for adopting paragraph 9.1.1.1. Commenters did not provide specific information. Therefore, we are not adopting paragraph 9.1.1.1 at this time. However, we will examine this issue in a future rulemaking, as necessary. We are revising the wording in proposed paragraph (f)(2) that would have required a PRD, when installed, to be in the vapor space of the cylinder. Several commenters objected to requiring the PRD to be in the vapor space of a cylinder containing liquefied Division 2.2 gases. They stated the proposal would require valve redesign at substantial costs and would be ineffective in tube trailers and other cylinders loaded in horizontal positions. The commenters suggested we revise the provision to require the PRD to be ``in communication with the vapor space.'' We agree. The paragraph is revised to require the inlet port to the relief channel to be in the vapor space of the cylinder. We also are revising the wording of proposed paragraph (f)(3) that would have required the pressure relief setting (the start-to-discharge or ruptured pressure) of a PRD for DOT-3 series cylinders to be not less than the minimum designed test pressure. In the NPRM, the proposed allowable tolerances for these PRDs were minus zero to plus 10%. Many commenters were concerned about the cost of producing PRDs with tolerances of minus zero to plus 10%. They stated that the proposed amendment would necessitate retrofitting many cylinders with new PRDs. Several commenters reiterated that CGA Pamphlet S-1.1 stipulates a maximum burst pressure for a disk as minus 10% to zero of test pressure. They stated that we provided no justification for requiring a cylinder pressure greater than the cylinder's specified test pressure. They also suggested that, in some situations, a shipper may want a cylinder to be fitted with a PRD that will function at a pressure much lower than the test pressure of the cylinder. Considering the comments received, we believe a setting of 100% of test pressure, with an allowable tolerance of minus 10% to plus zero of its setting for a PRD, is appropriate. This will provide a reasonable balance between keeping a [[Page 51631]] gas in a cylinder and preventing the cylinder from rupturing in case of a fire or overfill. PRDs designed to release at not less than test pressure, within the allowable tolerance, 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 conditions and test pressure, the safety factor for cylinder rupture is 1.6. It is our understanding, based on discussions with gas distributors, that many major gas distributors using DOT-3 series cylinders are currently setting the 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 cylinder's requalification, we believe this final rule will result in minimal incremental cost. Further, for most gases, the increased PRD setting will not significantly affect the performance of cylinders in bonfire tests. To allow users sufficient time to modify cylinders to meet the new PRD settings, we are providing that each cylinder must be brought into conformance at the first requalification of the cylinder after the effective date of this final rule. We are not adopting the change in proposed paragraph (f)(4) that would have required a PRD to be visually inspected for damage before filling the cylinder. We agree with commenters who stated that a visual inspection of the PRD will not detect defects associated with internal components and their ability to function. Neither are we adopting proposed paragraph (f)(5) that would have required a cylinder filling facility to test a PRD for leaks before offering a filled cylinder for transportation. Rather, we are adding a new subparagraph to paragraph (a) to include the long-standing regulatory requirement, currently in Sec. 173.34(d), that safety relief devices must be tested for leaks before the filled cylinder is transported. We are also adding language pertaining to repair of leaking fuse plug devices, also currently in Sec. 173.34(d), that was inadvertently omitted in the NPRM. In addition, several commenters suggested revising the wording to prohibit a cylinder with a leaking PRD from being offered for transportation. We agree with the commenters. We have included a restriction on leaking PRDs in paragraph (a)(2) of this final rule. We are correcting the wording that appeared in proposed paragraph (f)(6)(i)(B), adopted as paragraph (f)(5)(i)(B) in this final rule, to state that a PRD is not required on a cylinder of 305 mm (12 inches) or less in length and 114 mm (4.5 inches) or less in outside diameter. However, if the cylinder is filled with a nonliquefied gas to a pressure of 1800 psig or higher, then it must have a PRD. Paragraph (g) specifies requirements for manifolding cylinders in transportation. We are revising the wording in proposed paragraph (g)(1) that would have required the PRD on manifolded cylinders containing any compressed gas to be arranged to discharge upward and unobstructed to the open air. Our intent for expanding the original requirement in the HMR from flammable gases to all compressed gases was to protect personnel and adjacent cylinders from gases released due to a PRD function. Upon further consideration, we agree with commenters that the need for PRDs to discharge upward is more crucial for horizontal cylinders containing flammable gases. Discharges of flammable gases could result in flame impingement on person","truncated":true,"body_characters":245663}