{"operation":"document","citation":"61 FR 26750","title":"Periodic Inspection and Testing of Cylinders","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Research and Special Programs Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"1996-05-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"RSPA is amending the requirements contained in the Hazardous Materials Regulations pertaining to the maintenance and requalification of DOT specification and exemption cylinders used for transportation of compressed gases in commerce. These changes clarify current inspection and retest requirements, incorporate certain regulatory interpretations, and add new provisions. The intent of these changes is to enhance public safety by clarifying the regulations for those persons who perform periodic inspection and testing of cylinders.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-12838.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-12838.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-12838","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1996/05/28/96-12838/periodic-inspection-and-testing-of-cylinders","body":"Federal Register, Volume 61 Issue 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996) [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 26750-26764] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 96-12838] [[Page 26749]] _______________________________________________________________________ Part V Department of Transportation _______________________________________________________________________ Research and Special Programs Administration _______________________________________________________________________ 49 CFR Parts 171 and 173 Periodic Inspection and Testing of Cylinders; Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Rules and Regulations [[Page 26750]] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 171 and 173 [Docket No. HM-220A, Amdt Nos. 171-143, 173-251] RIN 2137-AC59 Periodic Inspection and Testing of Cylinders AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RSPA is amending the requirements contained in the Hazardous Materials Regulations pertaining to the maintenance and requalification of DOT specification and exemption cylinders used for transportation of compressed gases in commerce. These changes clarify current inspection and retest requirements, incorporate certain regulatory interpretations, and add new provisions. The intent of these changes is to enhance public safety by clarifying the regulations for those persons who perform periodic inspection and testing of cylinders. DATES: Effective date: The effective date of these amendments is October 1, 1996. Compliance date: Voluntary compliance with the regulations is authorized immediately. Incorporation by reference date: The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these amendments has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register to be effective on October 1, 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa Gwynn or Hattie L. Mitchell, telephone (202) 366-4488, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On October 18, 1995, RSPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM; Notice No. 95-13; 60 FR 54008) under Docket HM-220A proposing to amend the requirements contained in the Hazardous Materials Regulations pertaining to the maintenance and requalification of DOT specification and exemption cylinders used for transportation of compressed gases in commerce. Comments were due by December 15, 1995. RSPA received several requests to extend the comment period and, although RSPA did not extend the comment period, it did consider late-filed comments. RSPA received more than 30 comments, and several commenters filed supplements to their initial comments. These comments represent the views of various trade associations, cylinder manufacturers and owners, compressed gas suppliers, fire safety equipment suppliers, independent hydrostatic retest operators and manufacturers of hydrostatic retest equipment and cylinder relief valves. All of the commenters were in general agreement with the NPRM's clarification goal, but many expressed concerns about specific proposals and suggested that RSPA make additional changes. A number of commenters requested that RSPA delay this rulemaking and incorporate it into a future rulemaking in which RSPA will propose the revision and reorganization of all cylinder specifications in Part 178 (Docket HM-220, Regulation Identification Number 2137-AA92; See DOT Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 60 FR 60296, 60434, November 28, 1995). RSPA also intends to propose that all requirements applicable to the inspection, retest, repair and continuing requalification of cylinders be moved from section 173.34 to part 180. However, RSPA believes that some of the regulatory requirements in section 173.34(e) are not sufficiently clear and, based on safety concerns regarding retest and condemnation procedures, are in need of immediate clarification. Therefore, this final rule is being issued now to address the persistent questions and problems that the regulated community experiences in this area. Some comments were beyond the scope of this rulemaking and thus, not addressed in this rule; however, RSPA will, where feasible, consider incorporating these comments in the future rulemaking. In addition, the reorganization of section 173.34(e) will require the correction of the section references contained in the Guidelines for Civil Penalties (Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 107). RSPA intends to accomplish this editorial correction in a future rulemaking. II. Discussion of Comments Section 173.34(e) Revision of Retest Table A number of commenters noted that the section references contained in the proposed Retest and Inspection of Cylinders table (NPRM, pages 54013-14) were incorrect. The table has been revised to list the correct section references. In addition, RSPA incorporated two requirements previously found in section 173.34(e) (7) and (12) as footnotes to the retest table. In the NPRM, RSPA invited comments on whether table entries were needed to specify retest pressure or frequency for any specification, exemption or special permit cylinder. Although most comments supported such a change, RSPA has not included those entries in the table at this time. RSPA is considering, as a part of HM-220, how to provide this information for the specification cylinders to retesters while not expanding the table to an unmanageable size. RSPA agrees with those commenters who recommended that the table contain a generic entry that refers to a copy of the current exemption for the exemption cylinders. This final rule revises the table to include such an entry. Another commenter suggested that the following note be placed at the end of the retest table: ``Foreign acetylene cylinders must be tested in accordance with the same requirements as those of DOT 8, 8AL.'' This suggestion has not been adopted in this final rule because there has not been an adequate opportunity for the public to comment on this proposed revision. However, RSPA will consider this comment in a future rulemaking. General Requirements and Retester Authorization RSPA proposed amending section 173.34(e)(1)(ii) to prohibit the use, for transportation of a hazardous material in commerce, of a DOT specification or exemption cylinder that is required to be periodically inspected or tested unless the cylinder is marked with an inspection or test date indicating that it is qualified for use. Several commenters pointed out what they perceived as an apparent conflict between the language proposed in section 173.34(e)(1)(ii) and the language found in section 173.34(a)(1). Section 173.34(a)(1) prohibits a person from charging or filling a DOT specification cylinder with a hazardous material when the cylinder's retest date has expired, but permits the shipment of an ``out-of-test date'' cylinder which was charged or filled prior to the test date. The commenters stated that the proposed language represented dramatic change to the current application of the regulations. RSPA did not intend to change the current application of section 173.34(e)(1)(ii), and the proposed language has been reworded to clarify that the prohibition is against charging or filling a DOT specification cylinder after the cylinder's retest date has expired. [[Page 26751]] A commenter suggested that RSPA add a new paragraph in section 173.34(e) to explicitly recognize that there are certain conditions (e.g., corrosion or dents) that would require a cylinder to be removed from service prior to the scheduled retest date. RSPA has not adopted this comment because this situation is addressed adequately in section 173.34(a)(1), which states: ``A cylinder that leaks, is bulged, has defective valves or safety devices, bears evidence of physical abuse, fire or heat damage, or detrimental rusting or corrosion, must not be used unless it is properly repaired * * *.'' Proposed section 173.34(e)(2) sets forth the procedure to obtain retester authorization, in the form of a retester identification number (RIN), and to renew that authorization. A commenter stated that the proposed section does not specify from whom the retester is to obtain a RIN application. RSPA agrees and has revised the regulatory language to include this information. A commenter requested that RSPA revise section 173.34(e)(2) to specifically prohibit a retester from being authorized to perform retests in mobile operated stations such as vans. RSPA has not incorporated this comment because it is outside the scope of this rulemaking. In addition, RSPA has no information that would demonstrate that a retester could not comply with the applicable requirements of the HMR using a mobile station. Several commenters requested that RSPA clarify whether persons who only perform visual inspections on DOT specification or exemption cylinders need a RIN. RSPA has revised section 173.34(e)(2)(i) to clarify that a person is not required to obtain a RIN, if the person only performs visual inspections on DOT specification or exemption cylinders. In sections 173.34(e) (2)(i), (2)(iv) and (2)(v), RSPA proposed three new requirements. First, a retester's authority to mark a cylinder with a RIN and an inspection or test date would be contingent on the retester operating in compliance with the terms of the RIN issuance letter. Second, a retester would be required to inform RSPA in writing of any change in the company's address, cylinder qualification personnel or testing equipment within 20 days. (RSPA now imposes these two requirements under the terms of the RIN issuance letter.) Third, a retester would be required to maintain, at each facility where inspection and retesting is performed, the relevant parts of 49 CFR; copies of the current exemptions for all exemption cylinders inspected, retested or marked; and all Compressed Gas Association (CGA) pamphlets incorporated by reference in section 171.7 that apply to the retester's activities. A commenter stated that the requirement in proposed section 173.34(e)(2)(v) that a retester maintain ``current copies'' of certain CGA publications was confusing. The commenter indicated that it was unclear whether ``current'' referred to the most recent edition published by the CGA or the edition incorporated in the HMR. A retester must maintain, at each location where it inspects, retests or marks cylinders, the edition of each CGA publication incorporated by reference in section 171.7 that applies to retester's cylinder inspection, retesting and marking activities. To eliminate ambiguity, RSPA has clarified the language of this section. Another commenter suggested that, instead of referring to a specific CGA publication, RSPA add the language ``or a more current edition.'' RSPA has not adopted this suggestion. Regulations of the Office of the Federal Register require that materials incorporated by reference must be identified by title, date, edition, author, publisher and identification number of the publication (see 1 CFR Part 51). Visual Inspection Several commenters requested that additional language be added to section 173.34(e)(3) to clarify that a visual inspection is required each time a cylinder is retested. RSPA agrees with this comment and has inserted additional language to clarify this existing requirement. In addition, RSPA has added language to section 173.34(e)(2)(i) to clarify that a person who only performs a visual inspection and marks the cylinder with the inspection date does not need a RIN. However, CGA petitioned RSPA (P-1090) to add the requirement that such persons obtain a RIN. RSPA will consider this issue in the future rulemaking. Retesting RSPA received numerous comments concerning the retest requirements proposed in section 173.34(e)(4). A commenter requested that RSPA revise this section to reflect that expanding the calibrated cylinder to the prescribed level and then checking the pressure gauge provides the most precise indication of test system accuracy and, therefore, is the preferred method. RSPA has not adopted this comment. There are a number of acceptable methods that indicate test system accuracy, and RSPA believes this choice is best left to the individual retest operator. Several commenters suggested revisions concerning proposed section 173.34(e)(4)(ii). One commenter stated that it is not feasible to allow a 1 percent accuracy on the pressure-indicating device and a 1 percent accuracy on the expansion-indicating device and achieve a 1 percent accuracy for the total test system. The commenter stated that either the accuracy requirements for the two components of the test system must be reduced or the overall test system accuracy must be increased to account for both components of the test system being at the maximum allowable accuracy limit. In the NPRM, RSPA was attempting to clarify two key concepts: device accuracy (i.e., how truthfully the system displays, or records, the actual pressure or expansion being measured) and device resolution (i.e., the smallest incremental unit at which a measuring instrument or system must be capable of being read, or recorded, so as to meet or exceed the measurement accuracy requirement). RSPA proposed that a retester compare the pressure- and expansion-indicating devices against a calibrated standard daily to check their accuracy. However, if the scale of the indicating device does not show the proper resolution, the accuracy of the reading is not assured. Thus, section 173.34(e)(4)(ii) in the NPRM proposed resolution standards for both pressure- and expansion-indicating devices, while section 173.34(e)(4)(iii) proposed accuracy standards for both. The commenter has combined these two concepts and suggested that there must be a larger range for total test system accuracy. RSPA proposed that the pressure-indicating device and the expansion- indicating device each have an accuracy of 0.5% and the total test system accuracy be 1.0%. In order to achieve a 1% system accuracy, the pressure-indicating device (gauge or digital equivalent) and the expansion-indicating device (burette or load cell) each must be calibrated to \\1/2\\ of 1% within the usable range. RSPA proposed this accuracy standard because when the system is being tested against a known benchmark (i.e., a calibrated cylinder), the standard is readily achievable and allows the retester to verify the structural integrity of the cylinder. As previously stated, this accuracy standard is separate and distinct from the resolution standard. In a system using pressure gauges, for example, if a pressure gauge reads only in increments of 50 psi, and the minimum prescribed test pressure for a cylinder to be tested [[Page 26752]] is 1000 psi, the gauge would show insufficient resolution to determine accuracy. A gauge with a finer scale is needed. To achieve the required resolution, the gauge divisions should permit reading of pressures to within 10 psi, which is 1% of the cylinder's minimum prescribed test pressure (1000 psi). Because mid-point interpolation is permissible and 10 psi is one-half of 20 psi, a gauge of no greater than 20 psi increments can be used for this example. Thus, whether the pressure- indicating device meets the resolution standard is separate from whether the device meets the accuracy standard. In addition, RSPA proposed at section 173.34(e)(4)(iii)(A) that ``[t]he pressure indicating device * * * must permit readings of pressure from 90%-120% of the minimum prescribed test pressure of the cylinder to be tested.'' Several commenters opposed this requirement and stated that the requirement should specify a range of 90%-110% of test pressure. The commenters maintained that the NPRM's requirement would impose a financial burden on the industry without a safety benefit. The commenter stated that the current industry standard (CGA Pamphlet C-1) prohibits pressuring a cylinder above 110% of the specified test pressure. In addition, the commenter estimated that there were approximately 1,000 test systems equipped with gauges capable of reading 110% of the specified test pressure. The commenter estimated the cost of replacement at $450 per gauge and the total cost to industry of complying with this proposal to be in excess of $500,000. Because the main goal of this rule is clarification, not substantive change, RSPA is revising the proposed requirement and is specifying a 90%-110% range. RSPA requested comments on whether calibration should be required more or less frequently than the proposed daily calibration, and whether, for example, it is appropriate to require a calibration check at the beginning of each shift (for those facilities operating more than one shift per day), for each change in retest operator, or at some other frequency. Most commenters supported the daily calibration requirement proposed in section 173.34(e)(4)(iii). Two commenters suggested that calibration be required at the beginning of each shift. Another commenter indicated that it is important for each retest operator to have actual knowledge that the retest equipment is accurate. After reviewing the comments, RSPA has decided that the appropriate calibration verification interval is daily and thus, when conducting hydrostatic retests, a retest operator must verify the calibration of the equipment at least once each 24-hour period. In addition, one commenter suggested that proposed section 173.34(e)(4)(iv) be revised to read: ``The test equipment must be verified to be accurate within 1% of the calibrated cylinder's pressure * * *.'' RSPA agrees that this language clarifies the requirement and has incorporated this language into the rule. RSPA proposed in section 173.34(e)(4)(iii) to allow a retester to use a method other than a calibrated cylinder if the retester receives written authorization from the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. One commenter inquired whether RSPA would grant this authorization to each individual retest facility or whether the authorization could be in the form of a more general notice. A retester who seeks to use a method not specifically recognized by the HMR must request written authorization to use that method. RSPA would review each request and, if it found the method acceptable, grant written authorization only to each specific retest facility requesting approval. If RSPA found that it was receiving and authorizing numerous requests for one particular alternative method, it would initiate a rulemaking to incorporate the alternative method into the HMR. Proposed section 173.34(e)(4)(v) restates the current requirements for cylinder retesting, including the requirement to hold minimum test pressure for at least 30 seconds and as long as necessary for full cylinder expansion, and the prohibition on pressurizing a cylinder above 90 percent of test pressure before a retest. When the system apparatus fails to hold pressure after test pressure has been reached, retest is authorized at a pressure increased by 10 percent or 100 psi, whichever is less. The NPRM invited comments on whether RSPA should: (1) Specify the period of time a retest operator must wait, after applying more than 90 percent of test pressure, before a second retest, (2) limit the number of permissible retests after apparatus failure, and (3) specify a standard for condemnation in the event of overpressurization. Most commenters opposed RSPA specifying requirements in any of these areas. They cited a wide range of reasons for opposing these requirements. Among those commenters who supported RSPA establishing standards in these areas, there was no consensus as to what the standards should be. After reviewing the comments, RSPA believes further evaluation is required and is not adopting any of these standards in this rulemaking. One commenter asked if there was a time frame between retests that would negate the requirement to increase the retest pressure and if a cylinder would still have to be tested at a higher test pressure if repairs to the retest equipment took several days. At this time, RSPA is unable to cite a specific time frame between retests that would negate the requirement to increase the retest pressure following an equipment failure. However, a brief passage of time, for example, where repairs to the retest equipment take several days, would not negate the requirement to increase the test pressure following an equipment failure. The commenter also asked how many times a retest could be performed before the cylinder must be condemned due to excessive pressurization. A cylinder must be condemned when the retest results exceed the permanent expansion limit. Thus, once this limit is exceeded, a retester must condemn the cylinder and no further retesting is permitted. This final rule contains language emphasizing that a second retest is authorized only when the testing apparatus has failed to hold test pressure. One commenter requested that RSPA expand the conditions under which a second retest is permitted. The commenter requested that RSPA add ``improper procedure'' and ``operator error'' as conditions under which a retester could repeat a retest at a higher test pressure. The commenter stated that equipment malfunction is not the only potential cause of an invalid test. RSPA has not adopted this comment. Such a revision would allow a retest operator to repeat a test under any condition by simply attributing it to ``operator error'' and to retest until the desired results were obtained. In addition, one commenter suggested that, at least every six months, retest operators be required to use a dead weight or master gauge to recalibrate the pressure gauge used for retesting. RSPA did not propose this standard in the NPRM and questions whether a six-month interval is the proper frequency for recalibrating the pressure gauge when compared to the additional costs. Because the proposal exceeds the scope of this rulemaking, and there was no opportunity for public comment on its additional costs, RSPA is not adopting this comment. One commenter suggested revisions to proposed section 173.34(e)(11) (paragraph (e)(10) in this rule.) The [[Page 26753]] commenter inquired whether the requirements of pressure gauge accuracy, readability and daily verification were applicable to the ``modified hydrostatic test.'' The commenter stated that because there is only one calibration device in the modified hydrostatic test system, there is no reason to verify the device's accuracy on a daily basis. The fact that the modified hydrostatic test system has only one calibration device increases, not decreases, the need for daily verification. Therefore, RSPA is not adopting this comment. The commenter also requested that RSPA clarify the system requirements for the modified hydrostatic test. RSPA has added language to clarify that an external visual inspection is part of the modified hydrostatic retest. In addition, as stated in section 173.34(e)(11), the system requirements for the modified hydrostatic retest are the same as the hydrostatic retest with the exception of the water jacket and the determination of the cylinder's total and permanent expansions. Marking RSPA proposed several changes to the marking requirements contained in section 173.34(e)(7). RSPA received a number of comments concerning these proposed changes. One commenter stated that, as proposed, the requirement for marking a cylinder with a RIN remains confusing and needs to be rewritten for clarification. RSPA has reviewed the language in proposed section 173.34(e)(7) and has made minor modifications to improve the section's clarity. One commenter suggested that RSPA require a retester to mark its RIN on a cylinder regardless of the test method used. RSPA has not adopted this comment, because this change in marking procedures was not proposed in the NPRM and there has not been an opportunity to comment on this additional marking burden. In addition, the commenter requested that the marking concepts of DOT Exemption E-11372 be incorporated into this rulemaking. RSPA has not had an opportunity to evaluate all the effects of this comment and therefore, will consider this comment in a future rulemaking. Cylinder Rejection/Condemnation RSPA received a number of comments on the proposed requirements, in sections 173.34(e) (5) and (6). One commenter suggested that RSPA revise the proposed language of section 173.34(e)(5) to stress that a cylinder that has been rejected may be requalified by repairing the defect (e.g., bad foot ring or damaged collar). RSPA agrees and has revised this section to clarify that a cylinder that has been rejected may be requalified by repairing the defect. Several commenters noted that the preamble language described the proposed rule as requiring a condemned cylinder to be stamped with a series of X's over the DOT specification number and service pressure or with the word ``CONDEMNED'' on the shoulder, top head, or neck of the cylinder was inconsistent with the regulatory language requiring a retester to apply both markings. The proposed regulatory language was incorrect and should have tracked the preamble language. RSPA is revising this rule to allow the retester to decide whether to stamp a condemned cylinder with a series of X's or the word ``CONDEMNED.'' A commenter requested that RSPA revise proposed section 173.34(e)(6)(ii) to shorten the word ``CONDEMNED'' to ``CNDMD.'' The commenter stated that such a revision would save the retester time and expense. RSPA recognizes that the proposed requirement will require more time than stamping ``CNDMD''. However, the proposed language is a better method to communicate to the public that the cylinder is not qualified to be used for the transportation of hazardous materials and is a better method to prevent condemned cylinders from being used to transport hazardous materials. Within the general public, there could be confusion concerning the meaning of ``CNDMD.'' In addition, as stated above, the retester has the option of stamping a condemned cylinder with a series of X's over the DOT specification number and service pressure. However, if stamping the word ``CONDEMNED'' or a series of X's over the DOT specification number and service pressure would create an undue burden on a retester, then under section 173.34(e)(7), the retester can make a written request for a variation to the marking requirement. Another commenter inquired as to how to stamp a fully-wrapped cylinder with the word ``CONDEMNED'' if there is not sufficient space on the neck of the cylinder. If there is not sufficient space to stamp the cylinder with the word ``CONDEMNED'' then, under this rule, a retester can exercise the option of stamping a series of X's over the DOT specification number and service pressure. Several commenters suggested that a retester be required to mark its RIN on a condemned cylinder. One commenter stated: ``Otherwise, a person wishing to claim a steel cylinder for scrap metal could simply `X' out the DOT specifications.'' RSPA is not aware that such a practice has become a problem, and RSPA does not believe the addition of a RIN would discourage or prevent such a practice. RSPA has not adopted this comment because this additional step would increase the cost of condemnation without any offsetting benefit. One commenter stated that the CGA pamphlets cited in proposed section 173.34(e)(6)(i)(A) do not provide sufficient information for the retester to make an objective determination as to what would ``appreciably weaken'' a given cylinder. RSPA has reviewed each of the CGA pamphlets incorporated by reference in section 173.34(e)(6)(i)(A) and finds that they provide a safe minimum standard for condemnation procedures. RSPA received only one comment opposing the written notification requirement for rejected and condemned cylinders in proposed sections 173.34 (e)(5)(ii) and (e)(6)(ii) (sections 173.34 (e)(5)(iii) and (e)(6)(iii) of this rule). The commenter stated that this requirement ``would generate unnecessary paperwork and would not improve the chances that a condemned cylinder will not be refilled.'' This written requirement gives the cylinder's owner actual notice that the cylinder can no longer be used to transport hazardous materials. In light of the potential civil liability considerations, this additional step will increase the likelihood that the cylinder owner will promptly remove the cylinder from service involving hazardous materials. Proposed section 173.34(e)(6)(ii) would allow a retester, at the direction of the owner, to render the cylinder incapable of holding pressure in some fashion (e.g., by damaging the cylinder threads or drilling through the cylinder wall). Several commenters suggested that RSPA add regulatory language authorizing the retester, without the permission of the owner, to render a condemned cylinder unserviceable by ``drilling a hole in the side or by damaging the threads.'' These commenters stated that simply marking the cylinders with a series of X's is not sufficient to ensure a condemned cylinder is not returned to service. RSPA must balance the commenters' concerns against the property interests of the cylinder's owner. Because the cylinder in most cases is not the property of the retester and a condemned cylinder may be used for purposes other than the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce, RSPA is not authorizing the retester to ``render the cylinder incapable of holding pressure'' unless the cylinder's [[Page 26754]] owner has given permission to the retester. One commenter requested that RSPA further clarify the phrase ``render the cylinder incapable of holding pressure.'' The commenter indicated that it knew of instances ``in which cylinders that had holes drilled in them by owners or retesters * * * were `repaired' using auto body filler or similar material.'' The commenter recommended that the HMR specify three actions a retester could take that would render a condemned cylinder incapable of holding pressure. RSPA has not adopted this comment. There are numerous actions a retester may take that would render a cylinder incapable of holding pressure. RSPA is not mandating any particular action but instead leaves this decision to the discretion of the cylinder's owner or, with the permission of the owner, the retester. Recordkeeping RSPA received a number of comments concerning the recordkeeping requirements proposed in section 173.34(e)(8). RSPA proposed that the retest record contain those entries previously required, as well as the cylinder manufacturer's name or symbol, cylinder dimensions and identification of the retest operator. One commenter requested that the language proposed in section 173.34(e)(8)(ii)(B) be revised to indicate that a retester is required to record only the information that is marked on the cylinder. The commenter stated that millions of cylinders are marked with only an owner's mark and are not marked with the manufacturer's name or symbol. Another commenter requested that the regulation allow a retester to use a code or symbol to represent the cylinder's dimensions. The commenter also requested that RSPA add the word ``actual'' prior to ``test pressure'' to avoid any confusion as to whether the retest operator should record the actual test pressure or the specified test pressure. Additionally, to clarify the recordkeeping procedures, the commenter requested that RSPA delete the phrase ``disposition, with reason for retest'' and insert ``disposition, with reason for any repeated test.'' RSPA agrees with each of these comments and has made the appropriate changes. One commenter was opposed to a requirement that retest operators record a cylinder's dimensions. This rule does not adopt this comment because an entry on dimensions can help distinguish between cylinders that have the same serial numbers and capacities. Another commenter recommended that RSPA revise the NPRM language concerning the length of time a retester must maintain its hydrostatic retest records. The commenter noted that RSPA proposed that records be maintained for five years, but some cylinders have retest periods in excess of five years. The commenter recommended retaining the current requirement that requires retention of the records until the expiration of the retest period or until the cylinder is reinspected or retested, whichever occurs first. RSPA agrees with this comment and has retained the current requirement in this final rule. One commenter requested that RSPA change the word ``sheets'' in section 173.34(e)(8)(ii)(A) to ``log.'' The relevant proposed language is: ``Calibrations must be recorded on the same sheets as, and in chronological order with, retest records for that date;''. The commenter stated that the word ``sheets'' could be interpreted to mean that each time a retester began recording retest information on a new sheet, it must verify the calibration of its retest equipment. RSPA has not adopted this comment because it believes the likelihood of such a misunderstanding is small. The provision does not require a retester to verify calibration each time it begins recording retest information on a new retest sheet. In addition, RSPA has modified its proposal to reduce the paperwork burden on retest operators. First, as quoted above, RSPA proposed that calibrations be recorded on the same sheets as the retest records for that date. The rule now requires only that the retest operator be able to demonstrate that the results of the daily calibration verification correspond to the hydrostatic retests that were performed on that day. Second, RSPA proposed that calibration runs be recorded, in chronological order, with the retest records for that day. Several commenters opposed this requirement. One commenter stated that this requirement ``would substantially increase our expense due to lost production and would only serve to meet the regulation.'' Another commenter stated that it maintained its retest records according to the name of each customer and the proposed requirement would drastically alter its filing system. CGA Pamphlet C-1, which is not incorporated by reference in section 171.7, recommends that retesters record calibrated cylinder expansions used to confirm retest apparatus calibration. Calibration checks must be recorded as a means of demonstrating that the test apparatus was accurate on any given day. However, RSPA did not intend to significantly increase the recordkeeping burden for retester operators, and therefore, RSPA has not adopted the proposed requirement that a retester maintain its retest records in chronological order. The recordkeeping requirement now requires a retest operator to be able to associate the daily verification(s) of calibration with the hydrostatic retests performed on that date. One commenter was opposed to the proposed revision of section 173.34(e)(8)(ii)(B) because it interpreted the NPRM as requiring the retest operator to sign the retest sheet each time the retest operator recorded the results of a hydrostatic retest. This section does not require a retest operator to sign the retest sheet each time the retest operator records the results of a hydrostatic retest. RSPA agrees with the commenter that such a requirement would be ``a waste of time and paper space.'' Section 173.34(e)(8)(ii)(B) requires that, for each cylinder retested or visually inspected, the retest record must contain a legible identification of test operator. Thus, if the retest operator performed all the retests recorded on a particular retest sheet, this section requires a retest operator to be legibly identified only once on the retest sheet. There is no requirement that the retest operator sign the sheet each time a retest is completed. Proposed section 173.34(e)(8)(i) requires each retester to maintain at its facility its RIN issuance letter from RSPA, a copy of its renewal request if the request is pending, copies of notifications to RSPA of changes in its name, address, personnel or equipment which occurred after issuance of the most recent RIN letter, and the most recent certificates of calibration for all calibrated cylinders. One commenter stated that the requirement ``to maintain specific documentation is unnecessary so long as the retester can provide equivalent documentation * * *.'' RSPA has not adopted this comment because section 173.34(e)(8) provides that a person shall maintain its RIN issuance letter, request for renewal if pending, copies of notifications to RSPA of changes in its name, address, personnel or equipment which occurred after issuance of the most recent RIN letter, and the most recent certificates of calibration for all calibrated cylinders in paper form ``or in a form from which a paper copy can be produced on request.'' Thus, a person can maintain this documentation in an electronic medium (e.g., computer records) provided the person can produce a paper copy upon request. In [[Page 26755]] addition, it is unclear what specific items would serve as the ``equivalent documentation.'' This phrase is subject to broad interpretation and lacks definition. RSPA's retester inspections indicate that maintenance of these documents is standard retester operating practice because of the requirement presently found in the RIN issuance letter. Furthermore, this requirement facilitates a prompt determination whether the retester is complying with the HMR. DOT 4-series Cylinders One commenter recommended three revisions to proposed section 173.34(e)(10). First, the commenter requested a revision to clarify that all DOT 4L cylinders are excluded from the requirements of this paragraph because these cylinders are excluded from requalification requirements. RSPA agrees and has adopted this comment. The revised language now appears in section 173.34(e)(9) of this rule. Second, the commenter recommended that RSPA add a sentence to proposed paragraph (e)(10) that would prohibit the removal of a DOT 4L cylinder's original stamped tare weight. The commenter stated that if the original stamped tare weight is removed and then there is a series of tare weight changes, it is difficult to determine if the cylinder has lost 10 percent of its original weight (rejection criterion for DOT-4 series cylinders). This was not suggested in the NPRM and is not adopted in this rulemaking because RSPA requires additional time to study the merits of the proposal. RSPA will consider this proposal in a future rulemaking. Third, this commenter suggested that for inspection of DOT 4L cylinders, a more appropriate CGA reference for proposed paragraph (e)(10) is CGA Pamphlet C-6.3 and not C-6.1 as proposed in the NPRM. RSPA agrees and has revised the CGA reference which now appears in section 173.34(e)(9) of this rule. Another commenter suggested that a number of hazardous materials be added to the materials listed in proposed paragraphs (e) (12) and (13). This was not suggested in the NPRM and is not adopted in this rulemaking because RSPA requires additional time to study the merits of the proposal. Two commenters stated that the proposed language in section 173.34(e)(18)(iv) provides a ``loophole'' wherein certain cylinders that exceed the wall stress limitation in section 173.302(c)(3), but subsequently confined to a specified noncorrosive gas service, would be allowed a ten year requalification. RSPA agrees and this result was not the intent of the proposed rule. Thus, RSPA has revised the rule to clarify that, in addition to other requirements, a cylinder that is not used exclusively in specific noncorrosive ga","truncated":true,"body_characters":101464}