Final answer to PST exemption questions

[PhilEllis]

so basically oxyhacker is completely correct, and you just think that the DOT is saying one thing and the reality of the paperwork will be another, but you actually have no idea.

Actually, you are wrong here. I have more than an idea. I understand how it actually works. I completely stand by my previous post. There are two types of exemptions. No other types exist. The conditions under which each are applicable and under which each may be extended are well established.....and I stated them exactly as they apply.

The one area where oxyhacker IS correct is that I provided no "substantiation" or "credible proof". With regard to my earlier post, he is wrong to imply that I am "some in the scuba industry" providing "rumor, speculation, and misinformation, knowing it to be false", even in the face of proof to the contrary. No one in this entire thread has provided an "substantiation", any "credible evidence", any "empirical evidence", or any other type of proof to support their position. I, however, will stand FULLY on what I stated in my post, because I believe it to be the truth of the situation as I understand it. I really hope to be completely wrong, and fully understand that should I later be proven wrong, I may have a quite unpleasant diet of my own words.

Additional Note: As I type this, I am preparing to eat my own words. When it comes to stating absolutely what an agency of the government might or might not do, published rules to the contrary, one would be wise to prepare for a diet of vowels and consonants.

Additional Note: As I sit here, looking at my TWO DOZEN E-9791 cylinders, I certainly don't get a lot of pleasure in knowing that I am EXACTLY CORRECT in what I have written. I personally benefit ONLY if I am wrong. Notwithstanding that fact, I don't walk around "whistling in the grave yard", hoping against hope that a thing which shouldn't happen, will happen. I can think of NO CIRCUMSTANCE when the old company, and it's old principals, performed nearly comparable to their promises. I don't expect anything any different this time. It would be instructive to again read post number 5 in this very same thread. This wise writer, whoever he or she might be, hit the nail on the head!

Phil Ellis

 

[cerich]

I am so glad I don't sell tanks....

 

[RiverRat]

People with E9791 cylinders have a real headache coming your way.

I really hope not.......Nothing like dropping $600.00 on something you thought would last forever and finding out they may end up worthless..............
Might be portable compressor time.

 

[DennisS]

DOT is reponsible for "transportation in commerce". If you're moving your furniture from state to state it doesn't affect you. If you hire a trucking firm it is applicable to them.

If I have an existing cylinder that I take to the dive shop and have filled, where does the DOT jurisdiction enter into the arrangement. The cylinder is never being commercially transported.

If it has a current hydro it should be good to go. DOT has no jurisdiction over air quality or overfills. It's up to the dive shop if they want to over pressure a tank. Why wouldn't it be up to the dive shop whether they want to fill the tank.

The reason I ask, is because they have limited jurisdiction, at a recent pyrotechnics convention they stopped all comercial vehicles. I drive a white panel van, I was asked if I was engaged in commerce, did I have anything for sale in the vehicle, was it a personal vehicle. When I replied "no" "no" "yes", they flagged me through. I wasn't involved in commerce transportation.

 

[SparticleBrane]

This is another great example of big government growing and getting it's paws into places it shouldn't belong. I don't see why, one day these tanks are fine, and the next they're illegal.

 

[PhilEllis]

DOT is reponsible for "transportation in commerce". If you're moving your furniture from state to state it doesn't affect you. If you hire a trucking firm it is applicable to them.

If I have an existing cylinder that I take to the dive shop and have filled, where does the DOT jurisdiction enter into the arrangement. The cylinder is never being commercially transported.

If it has a current hydro it should be good to go. DOT has no jurisdiction over air quality or overfills. It's up to the dive shop if they want to over pressure a tank. Why wouldn't it be up to the dive shop whether they want to fill the tank.

The reason I ask, is because they have limited jurisdiction, at a recent pyrotechnics convention they stopped all comercial vehicles. I drive a white panel van, I was asked if I was engaged in commerce, did I have anything for sale in the vehicle, was it a personal vehicle. When I replied "no" "no" "yes", they flagged me through. I wasn't involved in commerce transportation.

If I remember correctly, with regard to cylinders or containers that handle hazardous gasses (all scuba gasses), the DOT has jurisdiction over the "manufacture, sell, handling, use, and transportation" of the cylinders. I think the "handling" part of their responsibility is quite extensive, which has been ruled, in some instances, to mean "filling, private or commercial". I would need to investigate a little further to determine if my understanding is correct.

Phil Ellis

 

[CompuDude]

And the lesson to learn from this thread and others like it: Sell your PST tanks on eBay now, and use the money to buy some Worthingtons.

 

[DennisS]

If I remember correctly, with regard to cylinders or containers that handle hazardous gasses (all scuba gasses), the DOT has jurisdiction over the "manufacture, sell, handling, use, and transportation" of the cylinders. I think the "handling" part of their responsibility is quite extensive, which has been ruled, in some instances, to mean "filling, private or commercial". I would need to investigate a little further to determine if my understanding is correct.

Phil Ellis

Interstate Commerce is the key phrase

 

[SparticleBrane]

And the lesson to learn from this thread and others like it: Sell your PST tanks on eBay now, and use the money to buy some Worthingtons.

Bingo--Worthingtons or Faber.

 

[oxyhacker]

I'll agree that one person's report of what someone else told them in a phone call is less than ideal comes to substantiation as compared to, say, a letter, but it is substantiation of a sort, and a heck of a lot better than just alluding to unnamed sources or saying that you believe you are right at least as you understand it Especially when one gives, as I did, a phone number so anyone who isn't willing to take my word for what the DOT told me can call the DOT and verify the accuracy of my statements for him or herself. Which I must say, none of the naysayers on this issue seem very interested in doing.

No one in this entire thread has provided an "substantiation", any "credible evidence", any "empirical evidence", or any other type of proof to support their position. I, however, will stand FULLY on what I stated in my post, because I believe it to be the truth of the situation as I understand it. I really hope to be completely wrong, and fully understand that should I later be proven wrong, I may have a quite unpleasant diet of my own words.

Additional Note: As I type this, I am preparing to eat my own words. When it comes to stating absolutely what an agency of the government might or might not do, published rules to the contrary, one would be wise to prepare for a diet of vowels and consonants.

Phil Ellis