Here we go again...PST tanks marked E9791/SP9791

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!


Look at where it mention INCIDENT in multiple places in the one paragraph of which this is only one of many in the document.

Just a snipet below:

The application must include a statement describing all relevant operational, shipping, and incident experience of which the applicant is aware in connection with the special permit since its issuance or most recent renewal. If the applicant is aware of no incidents, the applicant must so certify. When known to the applicant, the statement must indicate the approximate number of shipments made or packages shipped, as applicable, and the number of shipments or packages involved in any loss of contents, including loss by venting other than as authorized in subchapter C.

==================================

So I would think this is for a legal beagle?
Are you aware of any instances where the cylinders did not perform to their nominal specifications?

I don't think they mean "dropped on toe" or "got lost in shippment". Deformed, Leaked, or ruptured would probably be relevant.

For me, it would not seem to be particularly (legally) risky to affirm "no incidents known to me" if one doesn't know of any.

I think the bigger risk is that the bureaucracy is likely to sit on individuals' renewals requests because of 1) avoidance of volume, 2) avoidance of precedent.
 
Are you aware of any instances where the cylinders did not perform to their nominal specifications?

I don't think they mean "dropped on toe" or "got lost in shippment". Deformed, Leaked, or ruptured would probably be relevant.

For me, it would not seem to be particularly (legally) risky to affirm "no incidents known to me" if one doesn't know of any.

I think the bigger risk is that the bureaucracy is likely to sit on individuals' renewals requests because of 1) avoidance of volume, 2) avoidance of precedent.
Agree. I have 4 PST exemption tanks and can say with confidence none have leaked or ruptured lol

PHMSA would probably sit on your application and reach out to the new PST owners and poke them to renew - which I imagine is already happening behind the scenes, perhaps overly optimistically
 
Are you aware of any instances where the cylinders did not perform to their nominal specifications?

I don't think they mean "dropped on toe" or "got lost in shippment". Deformed, Leaked, or ruptured would probably be relevant.

For me, it would not seem to be particularly (legally) risky to affirm "no incidents known to me" if one doesn't know of any.

I think the bigger risk is that the bureaucracy is likely to sit on individuals' renewals requests because of 1) avoidance of volume, 2) avoidance of precedent.
Sometimes squeaky wheel gets the grease. If it takes dozens of us annoying government officials who don't want to do their job, then perhaps they'll get the hint.
 
FYI, it renewed today.
1670015404469.png
 
It looks like our long national nightmare is over.


Edited to add: It looks like @Tracy and I posted at the same time.
 
Does this authorization also apply to tanks stamped : DOT - E9791 ?
 
Does this authorization also apply to tanks stamped : DOT - E9791 ?
That is the exemption we are talking about.
 
God wanted to go diving but he didn't have any full tanks (yes, even God needs tanks).

So he came down and told PST and the DOT to get their heads out of their respective asses.

Thank God!
 
It looks like our long national nightmare is over.


Edited to add: It looks like @Tracy and I posted at the same time.
Oh no no, we'll revive this thread in 2026. LOL
 

Back
Top Bottom