Back to Federal guidance

Rejecting compressed-gas cylinders after external inspection

Summary An insurer asked how the compressed-gas cylinder inspection provisions fit together. OSHA said external defects in the cited subsections governed rejection for old and new cylinders alike, and a five-percent weight loss mattered for low-pressure cylinders. OSHA archives the letter.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1976-05-24-0
Date issued
May 24, 1976
Status
Archived by the agency
OSHA labels this an archive document and warns that it may no longer represent OSHA policy.
Status last verified October 10, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

The current status of this document is unclear
OSHA labels this an archive document and warns that it may no longer represent OSHA policy. It may no longer reflect the agency's current position. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify current law before relying on anything here.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

May 24, 1976
Mr. Arlen C. Bell
Fred S. James & Co.
of New York, Inc.
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Mr. Bell:
This is in response to your letter requesting clarification of the requirements under the OSHA Standard 1910.166(c)(3)(i)(a) as opposed to the requirement of 1910.166(d)(1).
In reading 1910.166(d)(1), we note that in the third sentence it says, "Defect limits for the external examination are prescribed in paragraph (c)". Upon examination we discover that paragraph (c) consists of three parts (1)(2)(3) and in (3) it is subdivided into paragraphing identified with the Roman numerals i, ii, iii, etc. and these in turn are broken down into subparts a, b, c, etc. We further note that the paragraphing quoted in your letter should be identified as 1910.166(c)(3)(i)(a). However, this ignores all of the other subparagraphs of paragraph 3 dealing with the physical conditions of the cylinder. Such items as the remaining wall thickness in the area having isolated pitting or a cylinder shall be rejected when the line corrosion on the cylinder is 3 inches in length or over, or a cylinder shall be rejected when the remaining wall thickness in an area of general corrosion is less than one half of the minimal allowable wall thickness. These are the physical conditions revealed by the external examination and dealt with under Paragraph (d)(1) third sentence. Since the Standard does not differentiate between the older and newer types of cylinders, the physical condition evident by an examination of the external parts of the cylinder would be the controlling factor. Another factor is the 5% weight loss of a low pressure cylinder which would be a controlling factor for determining rejection or acceptance of a cylinder.
We have mailed under separate cover several OSHA brochures including a copy of the Federal Register containing the current OSHA Standards dealing with this subject. Please note under 1910.166 the specific requirement for cylinders. Please feel free to contact us if there are further questions about OSHA.
Sincerely,
Alfred Barden
Regional Administrator
Occupational Safety and Health

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace