# Hazardous Materials: Requirements for Maintenance, Requalification, Repair and Use of DOT Specification Cylinders; Response to Appeals and Extension of Compliance Dates

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 68 FR 24653
- **title:** Hazardous Materials: Requirements for Maintenance, Requalification, Repair and Use of DOT Specification Cylinders; Response to Appeals and Extension of Compliance Dates
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Research and Special Programs Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2003-05-08
- **effective on:** 2003-06-09
- **summary:** On August 8, 2002, RSPA published a final rule under Docket No. RSPA-01-10373 (HM-220D) amending the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations applicable to the maintenance, requalification, repair, and use of DOT specification cylinders. The revisions simplified the regulations, responded to petitions for rulemaking, addressed recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board, and enhanced the safe transportation of hazardous materials in cylinders. In response to appeals submitted by persons affected by the August 8, 2002 final rule, this final rule amends certain requirements, extends certain compliance dates, and makes minor editorial corrections.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-03-11334.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-03-11334.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-03-11334
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/05/08/03-11334/hazardous-materials-requirements-for-maintenance-requalification-repair-and-use-of-dot-specification
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 68 Issue 89 (Thursday, May 8, 2003) [Federal Register Volume 68, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 2003)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 24653-24664] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 03-11334] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 173, 177 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; Response to Appeals and Extension of Compliance Dates AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; response to appeals. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On August 8, 2002, RSPA published a final rule under Docket No. RSPA-01-10373 (HM-220D) amending the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations applicable to the maintenance, requalification, repair, and use of DOT specification cylinders. The revisions simplified the regulations, responded to petitions for rulemaking, addressed recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board, and enhanced the safe transportation of hazardous materials in cylinders. In response to appeals submitted by persons affected by the August 8, 2002 final rule, this final rule amends certain requirements, extends certain compliance dates, and makes minor editorial corrections. DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective June 9, 2003. Compliance Date: Delayed compliance dates for certain regulatory provisions are set forth in the regulatory text. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Webb, (202) 366-8553, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards or Mark Toughiry, 202-366-4545, Office of Hazardous Materials Technology, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On August 8, 2002, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA, we) published a final rule under Docket No. 01-10373 (HM-220D) (67 FR 51625) amending the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) applicable to the maintenance, requalification, repair, and use of DOT specification cylinders. [[Page 24654]] We received more than 20 appeals. Several appellants filed supplements to their initial appeals of the implementation of HM-220D, either in total or in part. Appellants included the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, American Trucking Associations, Compressed Gas Association (CGA), Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, Fire Suppression Systems Association (FSSA), National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) and representatives of cylinder and equipment manufacturers, refillers and users, distributors, and shippers. Because of opposition to certain requirements in the August 8, 2002 final rule, we published a final rule in the Federal Register on September 30, 2002 (67 FR 51626), extending the compliance date for certain provisions until May 30, 2003. This extension allowed RSPA to fully evaluate the issues raised by the appellants. The September 30, 2002 final rule extended the compliance date for the following requirements: --Sec. Sec. 173.40(b) and 173.301a(d)(3)--Prohibiting the pressure at 55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F) in a cylinder from exceeding the service pressure of the cylinder. This provision affects Hazard Zone B gases, in particular hydrogen sulfide. --Sec. Sec. 173.301(f)(2) and 177.840(a)(1)--Requiring the inlet port to the relief channel of a pressure relief device, when installed, to be in the cylinder's vapor space. --Sec. 173.301(f)(3) and 180.205(c)(4)--Requiring the set pressure of the pressure relief device to be at test pressure with a tolerance of minus 10% to plus zero for DOT 3-series cylinders. --Sec. 173.301(h)(2)--Allowing cylinders filled with a flammable, corrosive, or noxious gas to have the valves protected by loading the cylinders in an upright position and securely bracing in rail cars or motor vehicles, when loaded by the consignor and unloaded by the consignee. Discussion and Resolution of Appeals Sections 173.40(b) and 173.301a(d)(3). The August 8, 2002 final rule contains a requirement that the pressure of a Hazard Zone A or B toxic by inhalation hazard material at 55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F) may not exceed the service pressure of the cylinder and that sufficient outage must be provided so that the cylinder will not be liquid full at 55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F). CGA and another appellant state that this revision would affect the shipment of hydrogen sulfide, a Hazard Zone B material, in DOT specification 3A and 3AA480 cylinders, as authorized in Sec. 173.304a. Specifically, the appellants point out that the pressure of hydrogen sulfide at 55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F) exceeds the 480 psi marked service pressure for DOT 3A and 3AA480 cylinders. They also note that the Sec. 173.304a table continues to authorize DOT specification cylinders with a marked service pressure of 480 psi, thus creating a conflict with the provisions in Sec. 173.40(b). The appellants are correct that an inconsistency exists between the provisions in Sec. 173.40(b) and the entry in Sec. 173.304a table for hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide has a vapor pressure of about 545 psi at 55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F). Therefore, in this final rule, we are revising the hydrogen sulfide entry in the Sec. 173.304a table. This revised entry permits the continued use of currently authorized cylinders for hydrogen sulfide until December 31, 2003. After the transition period, hydrogen sulfide must be transported in a cylinder that conforms to the requirements in Sec. 173.40(b). Also, for consistency we are extending the dates in Sec. Sec. 173.40(b) and 173.301a(d)(3) to December 31, 2003. In addition, an appellant notes that throughout the HMR, the normal filling densities and liquid-full conditions for liquefied compressed gas in cylinders are based on two temperatures, ``54 [deg]C (130 [deg]F)'' and ``55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F).'' The appellant suggests that one set of values be used. We agree and are revising the pressure reference temperature to read ``55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F)'' throughout the HMR, except in Sec. 173.306. This reference temperature is consistent with that used in the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Model Regulations). Sections 173.301(f)(2) and 177.840(a)(1). Appellants express concern about the requirement in the August 8, 2002 final rule that the inlet port to the relief channel of a pressure relief device (PRD), when installed, must be in the cylinder's vapor space. Several appellants maintain that it is not possible to assure that the PRD is in communication with the vapor space. They further state that vapor space shifts based on the orientation of a cylinder, thus making it impossible to insure that the inlet port to the PRD is always in the cylinder's vapor space. Other appellants, representing the fire suppression industry, express concern that the current configuration of most fire suppression cylinders locates the inlet port to the pressure relief device in a siphon tube, which communicates directly with the liquid portion of the contents rather than the vapor space. Consequently, this requirement would ban most fire suppression cylinders from transportation. The appellants state that in order to comply with the requirement, fire suppression cylinders would have to be redesigned to increase flow capacity and resubmitted to Underwriters Laboratories for testing and approval. They argue that this process effectively could take eighteen months or more. Moreover, several appellants cite test data generated in the late 1970s by CGA, with DOT participation, demonstrating that the current PRDs operate as designed regardless of whether the PRD inlet port is in the liquid or vapor space of the cylinder. CGA furnished a copy of the bonfire test data used to support the adequacy of PRDs conforming to CGA Pamphlet S-1.1. Based on the merits of the comments and test data, we agree that the current requirements in CGA Pamphlet S-1.1 are adequate, regardless of whether the inlet port to a PRD communicates with the liquefied gas or the vapor space. However, it remains our position that, in a fire, a cylinder that vents a liquefied flammable gas poses a greater risk than if it vents vapors. Appellants support continuing to apply the requirement to liquefied flammable gases to minimize the amount of gas released and potential for initiation of the gas. Therefore, we are revising Sec. Sec. 173.301(f)(2) and 177.840(a)(1) to require that the PRD be in the vapor space of cylinders used to transport Division 2.1 (flammable gas) materials, only. Sections 173.301(f)(3) and 180.205(c)(4). Sections 173.301(f)(3) and 180.205(c)(4) set forth requirements for PRDs. The August 8, 2002 final rule requires that PRDs for DOT-3 series cylinders must be set at 100% of test pressure, with an allowable tolerance of minus 10% to plus zero. CGA and several other appellants oppose this requirement, stating that it does not take into consideration that several types of PRDs are activated either by pressure, temperature or both. For example, appellants state that certain PRDs, such as CG-2, CG-3, and CG-9 devices, are fusible plug devices activated by temperature and not by pressure. PRDs incorporating a CG-1, CG-4, and CG-5 device are activated by pressure or a combination of temperature and pressure. Similarly, other appellants state that the requirements specified in CGA Pamphlet S-1.1 restrict certain PRDs, such as CG-2, CG-3, and CG-7 devices, to service pressures below 500 psig, regardless of the test pressure of the cylinder. The appellants request that the provision requiring PRDs on DOT 3-series cylinders be set at 100% of test pressure, with an allowable tolerance of minus 10% to plus zero apply to the CG-1, CG-4, and CG-5 PRDs, only. We [[Page 24655]] agree with the appellants and have made the appropriate changes. In addition, FSSA and other appellants in the fire protection industry emphasize that cylinders used for fire extinguishers have assemblies consisting of a combined rupture disk and holder as specified in CGA Pamphlet S-1.1, paragraph 6.3.2. These appellants reiterate that CGA Pamphlet S-1.1 stipulates an operating tolerance of minus 15% to plus zero for PRDs with a holder. We agree that while the rupture disks are designed with a tolerance of minus 10% to plus zero, when a disk is placed inside a holder, the disk may rupture below its allowable tolerance of 10%. Therefore, we are allowing an additional 5% tolerance, as allowed in CGA S-1.1-1994, paragraph 6.3.2, for a combined rupture disk and holder. We are revising Sec. Sec. 173.301(f)(3) and 180.205(c)(4) for consistency with these tolerances requirements. Section 173.301(h)(2). Section 173.301 sets forth the requirements for cylinder valve protection. The August 8, 2002 final rule discontinues an authorization that allows protection of the valves by loading and securing the cylinders in an upright position in cars and motor vehicles, when loaded by the consignor and unloaded by the consignee. An appellant, opposing the removal of this provision, states that shipping experience using this particular method has proven to be adequate and requests that the authorization be continued. Based upon the appellant's request that this method be allowed for cylinders manufactured before October 1, 2007, in the September 30, 2002 final rule we adopted a new paragraph (h)(2)(iv) to permit continuance of the authorization until May 30, 2003. Upon further consideration of the impact on industry and the changes adopted in Sec. 177.840(a)(1), we agree that the authorization should be continued for cylinders properly secured in rail cars and motor vehicles during transportation. Therefore, we are revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv) to continue the authorization. Section by Section Review The following is a section-by-section summary of changes and, where applicable, a discussion of appeals received. Part 107 Section 107.803. Section 107.803 sets forth the application procedures for approval as an Independent Inspection Agency (IIA). In the August 8, 2002 final rule, we inadvertently omitted a provision contained in former Sec. 173.300a. The provision authorizes an approved IIA to perform other inspections and functions relating to the inspections and verifications of cylinders used in the transportation of hazardous materials. We are correcting the oversight by adding this provision in a new paragraph (e) in this final rule. Section 107.805. Section 107.805 sets forth application procedures for persons seeking approval to perform periodic cylinder requalification. In the August 8, 2002 final rule, we inadvertently omitted a provision contained in former Sec. 173.34(e)(2)(iv). The provision requires a person who holds a current requalification identification number (RIN) to inform RSPA in writing within 20 days of any change in the company's address, cylinder qualification personnel or testing equipment. The requirement to notify RSPA of these changes is reiterated in all RIN issuance letters. We are correcting the oversight by adding the provision in a new paragraph (e) in this final rule. Part 171 Section 171.12. In paragraph (b)(15), we are revising the reference ``173.301(j) through (l)'' to read ``173.301(j) through (m)'' for consistency with a change made in the paragraph designations in Sec. 173.301 of this final rule. Section 171.12a. In paragraph (b)(13), we are revising the reference ``Sec. 173.301(i) and (j)'' to read ``Sec. 173.301(j) through (m)'' for consistency with a change made in the paragraph designations in Sec. 173.301 of this final rule. Part 173 Section 173.40. Section 173.40 sets forth the general packaging requirements for toxic materials packaged in cylinders. An appellant requests that we reconsider the compliance date of a requirement contained in paragraph (a)(2) that permits a DOT 3AL cylinder made of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 filled with a Hazard Zone A material prior to October 1, 2002, to be offered for transportation and transported to its ultimate destination for reprocessing or disposal until April 1, 2003. The appellant states that the April 1, 2003 compliance date did not provide sufficient time to recover affected cylinders. Because cylinders made of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 are susceptible to sustained load cracking, we are not extending the April 1, 2003 compliance deadline date in this final rule. However, persons who may need to transport a filled cylinder for recovery or reprocessing after April 1, 2003, may submit an application for exemption in accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR 107.105 or 107.117. We are revising paragraph (b), as discussed earlier in this preamble, to extend the compliance date for the requirement that the service pressure of a cylinder used for a Hazard Zone B material equal or exceed the material's vapor pressure at 55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F) until December 31, 2003. An appellant questions whether the requirement in paragraph (c) that each cylinder valve outlet must be closed with a plug or valve applies to any amount of Division 2.3 Hazard Zone A gas. The requirements of Sec. 173.40 for Division 2.3 Hazard Zone A gases apply to any quantity of hazardous material, including residues and mixtures that meet the definition for this division and zone. Further, this requirement has been in effect since October 1, 1991. In paragraph (d)(2), we are revising the valve protection requirements to provide that when a protective device or overpack is used, it must be designed to protect the valve from breakage or leakage resulting from a drop of 2.0 m (7 ft) onto a non-yielding surface, such as concrete or steel. An appellant states that although a deformed valve is undesirable, a deformed valve should be acceptable if there is no loss of contents. We agree and are removing the requirement that the valve be protected from deformation. Section 173.163. We are making a minor editorial change in this section. Section 173.181. We are removing a reference to former Sec. 173.34(d)(6). Section 173.226 and 173.228. We are revising Sec. Sec. 173.226(a) and 173.228(b) to allow welded cylinders filled before October 1, 2002 with Hazard Zone A materials to be transported until December 31, 2003, for reprocessing or disposal of the contents. An appellant requests that we allow welded cylinders filled with Hazard Zone A material before October 1, 2002, to be returned empty to the shipper without any time limitation. Because of the inherent risks posed by using welded cylinders for toxic by inhalation hazard materials, we do not agree that an unlimited time period should be granted. Section 173.301. Paragraph (a) includes general cylinder requirements for shipment of compressed gases in cylinders and spherical pressure vessels. We are revising the wording in paragraph (a)(3) to require the replacement of a leaking PRD where the leak is through the fusible metal and the opening in the plug body. An appellant states that most gas suppliers do not have the skills to perform these repairs on defective PRDs; therefore, the device [[Page 24656]] should be replaced and not repaired. We agree with the appellant. As discussed earlier in this preamble, we are making several changes to the PRD requirements in paragraph (f). We are revising paragraph (f)(2) to require the PRD to be in the vapor space of a cylinder only when it contains a Division 2.1 (flammable gas) material. In paragraph (f)(3), we are applying the operating tolerance requirements to types CG-1, CG-4, and CG-5 PRDs only. We are also allowing an additional 5% tolerance when a PRD is fitted in a disk holder. A commenter pointed out that the PRD requirement in paragraph (f)(3) also should apply to a DOT 3T cylinder when fitted with a PRD. We agree that these safety controls should apply and are including the DOT 3T cylinder in the provision. An appellant requests that in paragraph (f)(5)(i) we revise the wording ``or a nonliquefied gas to a pressure of 1800 psig or higher'' to read ``or a nonliquefied gas to a pressure greater than 1800 psig.'' The appellant states that this change would permit vast numbers of ``DOT E1800 lecture bottles'' which are rated for 1800 psi and do not have a PRD to continue to be shipped. We do not agree with the appellant. The provision requiring a cylinder filled with a nonliquefied gas to a pressure of 1800 psi or higher at 70 [deg]F to have a PRD was adopted into the regulations before 1950. We proposed no revision to the requirement. Therefore, the appellant's request is outside the scope of this rulemaking and the requirement is retained. Paragraph (g) sets forth requirements for manifolding cylinders in transportation. We are revising the wording in paragraph (g)(1) to allow PRDs on manifolded horizontal cylinders, mounted on a motor vehicle or in a framework, to be based on the lowest marked pressure of any individual cylinder in the manifold unit. Appellants state that allowing the manifolded cylinders to have PRDs with the same pressure setting will enhance safety because the set pressure on the individual cylinders will not exceed the minimum test pressure of the cylinders. We agree and have revised the provision accordingly. In addition, the PRD setting of any horizontal cylinder removed from an existing manifold and installed into a different manifold must meet the requirements in paragraph (g)(1) to prevent the premature release of cylinder contents during transportation. Another appellant requests the removal of a requirement in paragraph (g)(1) stating that PRDs on manifolded horizontal cylinders filled with a compressed gas must be arranged to discharge unobstructed to the open air in such a manner as to prevent any escaping gas from contacting personnel or any adjacent cylinders. The appellant states that the requirement is unnecessary for Division 2.2 (non-flammable) gases and would impose considerable costs with no increase in safety. It was our intent to prevent, after a PRD activates, a condition that restricts the gas from releasing from the device. We are revising the requirement for clarity. Paragraph (h) sets forth requirements for cylinder valve protection. As discussed earlier in this preamble, we are revising paragraph (h)(2) for cylinders manufactured before October 1, 2007, to allow cylinders to have their valves protected by loading the cylinders in an upright position and securely restraining them in rail cars or motor vehicles, when loaded by the consignor and unloaded by the consignee. Paragraph (h)(3) contains valve protection requirements for cylinders manufactured on and after October 1, 2007. An appellant who opposes the requirement requests that it be removed. The appellant states that with an estimated 100 million seamless and welded cylinders in circulation within the United States, other than acetylene cylinders, a 5-year transition period does not provide sufficient time for the changeover to a new valve protection system. Further, the appellant states that the valve caps currently in use may not meet the new requirement, and a new design that is different from existing designs will be required to prevent older style caps from being used on cylinders manufactured after October 1, 2007. Another appellant requests a revision to paragraph (h)(3) to require that cylinder caps and valve guards meeting the new performance drop test adopted in the August 8, 2002 final rule be stamped with the marking ``Sec. 173.301(h)(3).'' The appellant states that, without this marking, no means exist to identify the caps and valve guards conforming to the performance requirement; thus, the rule would be unenforceable. We do not agree with the first appellant's request that paragraph (h)(3) be removed. The performance requirement provides increased assurance that the valves will be protected if the cylinder is dropped onto a concrete surface. The August 8, 2002 final rule provides a five-year transition period to facilitate compliance with the requirement. We believe the latter appellant's suggestion that some means should be used to identify cylinder valve caps and guards that meet the new performance requirement has merit. However, we did not include a marking requirement in the notice of proposed rulemaking (Docket HM- 220, 63 FR 58460, October 30, 1998). Therefore, the request is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Even though we did not propose a method to distinguish valve caps and guards conforming to the performance requirement, we encourage industry to employ effective methods. We will consider proposing a marking requirement in a future rulemaking. Paragraph (i)(3) addresses cylinders longer than 2 m (6.5 ft) horizontally mounted on motor vehicles or in frames. The appellant who opposed the requirement in paragraph (h)(2) that PRDs be arranged in such a manner as to prevent any escaping gas from contacting personnel or any adjacent cylinders also opposed a similar provision in this paragraph. We are revising the provision to clarify that gas released from the device must be unobstructed. In the August 8, 2002 final rule, we inadvertently omitted reciprocity provisions contained in former Sec. 173.301(i)(2). The provisions authorize cylinders marked ``CTC'' and conforming to Canadian Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations to be transported to, from or within the United States under certain conditions. We are correcting the oversight by adding the provisions in paragraph (m) in this final rule. Section 173.301a. Paragraph (d)(3) is revised for consistency with the provisions in Sec. 173.40 which contains general packaging requirements for Hazard Zone A and B materials. Section 173.302a. An appellant expresses concern that the regulatory text adopted in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) conflicts with the preamble discussion of this section contained in the August 8, 2002 final rule. The regulatory text states that compliance with the average wall stress limitation may be met by computing the elastic expansion rejection limit (REE) in accordance with CGA Pamphlet C-5. However, the preamble states ``we are not authorizing the use of an REE marking applied to the cylinder by a person other than the manufacturer because it may be inaccurate.'' The appellant states that CGA Pamphlet C-5 has allowed persons other than the manufacturer to determine and mark the REE on the cylinder for years. With this being the case, there is no way to differentiate between an REE marking made by the manufacturer or some other person. We disagree with appellant. In our review of CGA Pamphlet C-5, we found no [[Page 24657]] provision that allows the REE to be stamped by persons other than the cylinder manufacturer. This fact was verified with CGA. Section 173.304. For uniformity with other references in the HMR, the reference to temperature ``54 [deg]C (130 [deg]F)'' is revised to read ``55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F).'' Section 173.304a. In paragraph (a)(2) table the heading reference ``Sec. Sec. 173.301(a)(1), 173.301(a)(4)'' in column three is revised to read ``Sec. Sec. 173.301(l), 173.301a(e), and 180.205(a)'' for consistency with the provisions in the HMR. For uniformity with other temperature references in the HMR, we are revising the wording ``Not liquid full at 130 [deg]F'' and ``Not liquid at 130 [deg]F'' to read ``Not liquid full at 131[deg]F'' in the following entries: ``Dichlorodifluoromethane and difluoroethane mixture,'' ``Insecticide, gases liquefied,'' ``Liquefied nonflammable gases, other than classified flammable, corrosive, toxic & mixtures or solution thereof filled w/nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or air,'' and ``Methyl acetylene- propadiene, mixtures, stabilized.'' We are correcting several shipping names by replacing the word ``inhibited'' with the word ``stabilized'' for the entries, ``Tetrafluoroethylene/inhibit,'' ``Trifluorochloroethylene, inhibited,'' ``Vinyl fluoride, inhibited,'' and ``Vinyl methyl ether, inhibited.'' These changes were adopted in a separate final rule (Docket No. RSPA-2000-7702 (HM-215D), June 21, 2001, 66 FR 33316) that made revisions to harmonize the HMR with the standards contained in the UN Model Regulations. In paragraph (c), for uniformity with other references in the HMR, we are revising the reference temperature ``54 [deg]C (130 [deg]F)'' to read ``55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F).'' In paragraph (d), the specific gravity ``9.504'' is in error. We are correcting the value to read ``0.504.'' Section 173.305. In paragraph (b), for uniformity with other references in the HMR, we are revising the reference temperature ``54 [deg]C (130 [deg]F)'' to read ``55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F).'' Section 173.306. In paragraph (g)(5), we are revising the reference ``Sec. 173.301(a)(8)'' to correctly reference the outer packaging requirements for cylinders that are now contained in Sec. 173.301(h). Part 177 Section 177.840. As discussed earlier in this preamble, we are revising paragraph (a)(1) to apply the requirement that a cylinder fitted with a PRD must be in communication with the vapor space to Division 2.1 (flammable gas) material, only. An appellant states that paragraph (a)(1), as written, prohibits the use of other freight as a means of securement to prevent movement of cylinders under normal conditions of transportation. Also read literally, the wording requires boxes containing cylinders to be securely attached to the motor vehicle. The appellant states that for- hire carriers cannot comply with the requirements. It was not our intent to require that the boxes be attached to the vehicle. We are revising the wording in this paragraph for clarity. However, as adopted in the August 8, 2002 final rule, the cylinders must be secured on the vehicle to prevent their being shifted, overturned or ejected from the vehicle under normal transportation conditions. Further, because we are continuing to allow the protection of the valves to be met by loading the cylinder in an upright position under Sec. 173.301(h)(2) of this final rule, it is crucial that the cylinders be properly secured and restrained during transportation. Depending on the size and weight of the cylinders, the use of other freight as the sole means of securement may not be entirely sufficient. Part 178 Section 178.46. An appellant requests that the maximum amount of lead (Pb) and bismuth (Bi) for aluminum alloy 6061 be changed to 0.003 percent from 0.005 percent for consistency with the values adopted in ISO 7866 and the UN Model Regulations. As we stated in the August 8, 2002 final rule, we adopted the limits based on chemical composition prescribed for unlisted metallic elements specified in Table 1 of ASTM B221. We plan to address cylinders manufactured to the UN Model Regulations in a future rulemaking. Part 180 Section 180.203. NPGA requests a revision of the definition of ``commercially free of corrosive components'' to include a reference to Table 1 in the Gas Processors Association (GPA) Standard 2140. In the final rule, we provided for cylinders used for petroleum gases meeting the moisture and corroding component limits in ASTM D-1835, ``Standard Specification for Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases,'' to be given an external visual inspection in place of a pressure test. We adopted this provision in Sec. 180.209, in paragraph (e) and the table in paragraph (g). NPGA states that GPA 2140, ``Liquefied Petroleum Gas Specification and Test Methods'' is a technically equivalent standard to ASTM D-1835 and contains the same provisions relative to moisture content and control of sulfur compounds as the ASTM standard. NPGA expresses concern that propane marketers whose supplier contracts may reference GPA 2140 rather than ASTM D-1835 could effectively be precluded from performing external visual inspections. We do not agree that the definition for ``commercially free of corrosive components'' should be revised. We are including a provision to recognize standards that are equivalent to ASTM D-1835 in Sec. 180.209(e) and the table in paragraph(g). An appellant requests a revision to the definition of ``Non- corrosive service'' to specifically include oxygen. The appellant states that including oxygen will allow cylinders used in oxygen service to be periodically retested once every 10 years instead of once every five years. We do not agree that the definition for ``non- corrosive service'' should be revised to include oxygen. Oxygen may be corrosive when it contains moisture or other impurities. Furthermore, current Sec. 180.209(b) provides that a DOT 3A or 3AA cylinder may be requalified every ten years instead of five years if used for oxygen that is commercially free of corroding components. An appellant requests a revision to the definition of ``Over- heated'' to add a statement that reads ``WARNING: This requirement pertains to an instantaneous heating. This requirement does not imply that heating cylinders at slightly lower temperatures for longer periods of time is an acceptable practice. Before heating cylinders for any purpose, the manufacturer should be contacted for time and temperature relationships and limits.'' The appellant states that there is a time requirement that must be considered when heating cylinders. The effects on the material are cumulative. Therefore, this warning statement alerts the user to the time interval associated with proposed temperature and to contact the manufacturer for heating operations. We agree that metal degradation is dependent on both temperature and time. However, we do not agree the definition of ``over-heated'' should be revised. The definition of ``over-heated'' in Sec. 180.203 applies to the condemnation criteria for aluminum cylinders during the requalification process and not to instances which may require a cylinder to be heated. Therefore, revising the definition to include a warning statement is not warranted. We recommend that users contact the manufacturers for restrictions on heating aluminum cylinders. [[Page 24658]] Section 180.205. Paragraph (c) sets forth requirements for periodic requalification of cylinders. As discussed earlier in this preamble, we are revising paragraph (c)(4) to require the PRD to be in the vapor space of a cylinder only when it contains a Division 2.1 (flammable gas) material. Also as discussed earlier, in paragraph (f)(3), we are applying the operating tolerance requirements to CG-1, CG-4, and CG-5 PRDs only. Paragraph (d) sets forth conditions requiring test and inspection of cylinders. An appellant requests a revision to state that the inspection and test are required when the cylinder shows evidence of dents, corrosion, cracked or abraded areas, leakage, thermal damage ``in excess of what is permitted by CGA Pamphlets C-6, C-6.1, C-6.2, C- 6.3, C-8 or C-13.'' The appellant states that, as written, any of the listed conditions, regardless of how inconsequential, would require requalifying the cylinder. Therefore, the requested revision better reflects what is intended and current industry practice. We do not agree with the appellant. The requirement does not apply ``regardless of how inconsequential'' the condition of the cylinder. Rather, as stated, the requirement to perform a test and inspection applies to conditions that might render the cylinder ``unsafe for use in transportation.'' The requirement is retained. Paragraph (f) sets forth the visual inspection requirements for cylinders. We are revising paragraph (f)(4), containing inspection requirements for cylinders made of aluminum alloy 6351-T6, to remove the wording ``in accordance with the cylinder manufacturer's written recommendations, which must be approved in writing by the Associate Administrator.'' Requalifiers are to inspect the neck and shoulder areas of these cylinders for evidence of sustained load cracking using any appropriate procedure. We are developing an NPRM to address the inspection of these cylinders. Paragraph (g) sets forth the pressure test requirements for cylinders. In paragraph (g)(2), we are revising the reference ``0.1 cm 3 '' to read ``0.1 cc'' because the acronym ``cc'' is a more recognizable unit of measure. In paragraph (g)(3)(ii), the reference ``0.1 cubic centimeter'' is removed and ``0.1 cc'' is added in its place for consistency with the change in paragraph (g)(2). Section 180.209. In the table in paragraph (a), we are revising the heading to column 3 to read ``Requalification period (years)'' in place of ``Test period (years)'' to more accurately reflect that a requalification may be an inspection or a test. In the August 8, 2002 final rule, we revised paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to allow cylinders containing ``fluorinated hydrocarbons, liquefied hydrocarbons, and mixtures thereof which are commercially free from corroding components'' and certain other gases to be requalified every ten years instead of every five years. An appellant states that chlorinated hydrocarbons have properties similar to fluorinated hydrocarbons and, therefore, should be listed. We agree and are adding an entry for ``chlorinated hydrocarbons and mixtures thereof that are commercially free from corroding components'' in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) in this final rule. For the same reason, we are adding an entry for chlorinated hydrocarbons in the table in paragraph (g). Also in the table in paragraph (g), we are correcting the entry ``Ethyleneimine, inhibited'' by replacing the word ``inhibited'' with the word ``stabilized.'' In addition, as stated earlier in the preamble discussion to Sec. 180.203, we are revising the wording in Sec. 180.209(e) and the table in paragraph (g) to recognize standards that are equivalent to ASTM D-1835. In the August 8, 2002 final rule, we inadvertently omitted a requirement in former Sec. 173.34(e)(15) stating that a DOT 3HT cylinder must be requalified in accordance with CGA Pamphlet C-8. We are redesignating current paragraph (k) as paragraph (l) and adding the provision in new paragraph (k) in this final rule. Finally, in this section, we are correcting several section references. Section 180.211. In paragraph (d)(1)(iii), we are correcting a section reference. Section 180.215. In paragraph (b)(1), we are correcting the paragraph heading ``Pressure test records'' to read ``Calibration test records'' to correctly identify the records prescribed in this paragraph. The pressure test records are prescribed in paragraph (b)(2). Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not considered significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). This final rule amends an August 8, 2002 final rule that made revision to requirements applicable to the maintenance, requalification, repair and use of DOT specification cylinders. A regulatory evaluation prepared for the August 8, 2002 final rule is available for review in the docket. The original regulatory evaluation was not modified because the amendments herein do not impose additional requirements and are not substantive changes to the final rule. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule imposes no new costs of compliance on the regulated industry and, in fact, should reduce overall costs of compliance. Based on the assessment in the original regulatory evaluation, I hereby certify that while this final rule applies to a substantial number of small entities, there will not be a significant economic impact on those small entities. A detailed Regulatory Flexibility analysis for the August 8, 2002 final rule is available for review in the docket. C. Executive Order 13132 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This final rule preempts state, local, and Indian tribe requirements but does not propose any regulation with substantial direct effects on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101- 5127, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) preempting state, local, and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered subjects. Covered subjects are: (1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous materials; (2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous materials; (3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents; (4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or [[Page 24659]] (5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material. This final rule addresses covered subject items 2
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 69189