| 14-0117 |
03-23-2015 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Rear-End Protection |
178.345-8(d)(1) |
March 23, 2015
Ms. Christina Kurtz
Manager, Regulations and Packaging
Health, Environment and Safety
Arkema, Inc.
900 First Avenue, Building #2
King of Prussia, PA 19406-1308
Ref. No. 14-0117
Dear Ms. Kurtz:
This responds to your June 10, 2014 request for clarification of the rear-end protection requirements for cargo tanks under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you request clarification of rear-end tank protection requirements based on the design requirements of § 178.345-8(d)(1).
The rear-end cargo tank protection device must be designed so that it can deflect at least 6 inches horizontally forward with no contact between any part of the cargo tank motor vehicle which contains lading during transit and with any part of the rear-end protection device, or with a vertical plane passing through the outboard surface of the protection device. If the piping is not in the horizontal plane of the bumper, then the 6 inch standard must be measured to a vertical plane passing through the outboard surface of the device. Furthermore, we expressed concern regarding the drain lines from the piping in that they are clearly in the horizontal plane of the bumper. Please be aware that drain lines from piping must also be in compliance with § 178.345-8(d)(1).
I hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact this Office at (202) 366-8553.
Sincerely,
Dirk Der Kinderen
Acting Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
178.345-8(d)(1) |
| 00-0189 |
01-09-2001 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Modification |
180.403 |
January 9, 2001
Mr. John P. McGavis Ref. No. 00-0189
Specialized Transport Repair
100 Commerce Drive
Buffalo, NY 14218
Dear Mr. McGavis:
This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the modification, repair, and certification requirements of MC 307 and DOT 407 cargo tank motor vehicles under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you inquire whether the installation of larger nozzles into manway covers would be considered a repair, rather than a modification and, therefore, would not require certification by a Design Certifying Engineer. You state that the 1998 National Board Inspection Code, in Appendix 6(b)(9), describes one example of a repair as "the installation of new nozzles or openings of such a size that reinforcement is not a consideration."
The installation of new nozzles in a manhole cover that differ in size or design from the originally installed nozzles would be considered a design change and categorized as a modification, not a repair under the HMR. A design type change requires approval and certification by a Design Certifying Engineer as specified in §180.413 of the HMR. As defined in §180.403, a "modification" means any change to the original design and construction of a cargo tank or cargo tank motor vehicle that affects its structural integrity or lading retention capability. Excluded are the replacement of components of similar design and of the same size.
I trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.403 |
| 00-0157 |
06-21-2000 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Modification |
180.407 |
June 21, 2000
Mr. John P. McGavis Ref. No. 00-0157
Specialized Transport Repair, Inc.
100 Commerce Drive
Buffalo, New York 14218
Dear Mr. McGavis:
This is in further response to your letter, dated May 25, 2000, concerning cargo tank retest requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You asked whether an MC 307 cargo tank on which the manway cover has been altered by the addition of a 3" nozzle must complete a pressure test before it can be returned to service.
After further discussion with technical staff of the Research and Special Programs Administration's Office of Hazardous Materials Technology and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Hazardous Materials Division, we have determined that your previous response to your question, in our letter dated June 7, 2000, was in error. The addition of a 3" nozzle to a Manway cover is, in fact, a 11 modification to the cargo tank because it involves a change to the design and construction of the cargo tank that affects its lading retention capability (see § 180.403 ofth6 HMR), Thus, a Design Certifying Engineer must certify that the modified design for the manhole assembly meets the structural integrity requirements of the DOT 407 specification, and a Registered Inspector must certify that the modified manhole assembly conforms to the DOT 407 specification by issuing a supplemental manufacturer's certificate (see §180.413(d)(5)). The modified manhole assembly must conform to the requirements for the DOT 407 cargo tank specification in §178.345-5.
In addition, the suitability of a modification that affects the structural integrity of a cargo tank with respect to pressure must be determined by a pressure test (see §180.413(d)(I 0)). For the modification of the manway cover that you have described, this requirement may be met by the performance of a bench test of the modified cover, provided that your bench test fixture is representative of the manhole assembly on the cargo tank. You need not complete a pressure test of the entire cargo tank.
I hope this information is helpful. Please accept my apology for any confusion that may have resulted from our previous response. If you have farther questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Allan
Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 01-0027 |
02-09-2001 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation |
180.407 |
FEB 9, 2001
Mr. Loy McGee Ref. No: 01-0027
Harmon Tank Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 2068
Lubbock, Texas 79408
Dear Mr. McGee:
This responds to your request for clarification of the periodic inspection and test requirements for non-specification cargo tanks authorized under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask about inspection and retest requirements for nonspecification cargo tanks authorized to transport flammable liquid petroleum products in intrastate commerce.
As you note, § 173.8 of the HMR permits an intrastate motor carrier to transport flammable liquid petroleum products in a non-specification cargo tank having a capacity of 3,500 water gallons or less provided the conditions listed in paragraph (d) of § 173.8 are met. Beginning July 1,2000, such non-specification cargo tanks must conform to all periodic test and inspection requirements applicable to DOT specification MC 306 cargo tanks, except for those listed in § 180.405(g) (see § 173.8(d)(6)). The non-specification cargo tank need not be retrofitted to meet the MC 306 specification, but operators must adhere to the same inspection and testing schedule as outlined for an MC 306 specification cargo tank. The operator must complete only the inspections and tests applicable to the tank itself and the equipment and appurtenances installed on the tank. In the example you provide, a non-specification cargo tank that is not equipped with self-closing stop valves, remote closures, or similar emergency devices and valves is not required to meet the inspection and testing requirements applicable to such devices.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Allan
Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 00-0334 |
12-06-2000 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation |
173.315 |
December 6, 2000
Mr. Cleveland O'Brien Reference No. 00-0334
Propane Technologies Training Instructor
Railroad Commission of Texas
1701 North Congress
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
This responds to your request for clarification of the requirements applicable to non-specification cargo tanks operating under the provisions of § 173.315(k) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask whether a non-specification cargo tank equipped with excess flow valves in the vapor and liquid discharge openings must be equipped with an internal self-closing stop valve at the first leakage test after July 1, 1999.
The answer is no. Section 180.405(n) of the HMR requires non-specification cargo tanks conforming to § 173.315(k) to be equipped with a means of thermal activation for the internal self-closing stop valve by the date of its first scheduled leakage test after July 1, 1999. The thermal activation device must meet the requirements for thermal remote operators in ' 178.337-8(a)(4). This requirement does not apply to a non-specification cargo tank authorized under § 173.315(k) that is not currently equipped with an internal self-closing stop valve,
Although a non-specification cargo tank that does not have an internal self-closing stop valve need not be retrofitted with a thermal activation device at this time, it will be necessary to install such a device as part of the emergency discharge control system retrofit program required under § 180.405(m). This section requires a non-specification cargo tank authorized under ' 173.315(k) to be equipped with an emergency discharge control capability as specified in § 173.315(n) at the date of its first scheduled pressure test after July 1, 2001. Section 173.315(n) requires each cargo tank used to transport liquefied compressed gas to have an emergency discharge control capability. For each cargo tank operating in metered delivery service, as defined in § 171.8, with a capacity of 3,500 gallons or less, the emergency discharge control capability consists of an off-truck means to close the internal self-closing stop valve and shut off all motive and auxiliary power (see § 173.315(n)(3)). Thus, at the date of its first scheduled pressure test after July 1, 2001, each non-specification cargo tank operating under § 173.315(k) in metered delivery service must be equipped with an internal self-closing stop valve and an off-truck means to close the valve and shut off all motive and auxiliary power. When the internal self-closing stop valve is installed, each non-specification cargo tank must also be equipped with a means of thermal activation for the internal self-closing stop valve in accordance with § 180.405(n).
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Mazzullo
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
173.315 |
| 00-0010 |
01-27-2000 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Modification |
178.345 |
January 27, 2000
Mr. Scott W. Rumph Ref No. 00-0010
Sumter Transport
170 South Lafayette Drive
Sumter, South Carolina 29150
Dear Mr. Rumph:
This responds to your letter, dated October 29, 1999, concerning cargo tank specification requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask about a design modification to MC 307, MC 312, DOT 407, and DOT 412 specification cargo tanks to equip them with an internal agitation system driven by a power source located outside the cargo tank.
Your letter suggests that you are considering manufacturing new cargo tanks equipped with the internal agitation system rather than modifying existing cargo tanks. You should be aware that MC 307 and MC 312 specification cargo tanks have not been authorized for new construction since August 31, 1995 (see § 180.405(b)).
The design and construction requirements for DOT 407 and DOT 412 specification cargo tanks are in § 178.345 of the HMR. The regulations do not prohibit a design of the type you describe. Each cargo tank motor vehicle design type must be approved by a Design Certifying Engineer (see § 178.320(b)). In addition, each finished cargo tank motor vehicle must be inspected by an Authorized Inspector or a Registered Inspector, as applicable (see § 178.345-1 (e)).
Generally, MC 307, MC 312, DOT 407, and DOT 412 specification cargo tanks are authorized for bulk shipments of flammable liquids, including waste flammable liquids. Packaging requirements for bulk quantities of a specific hazardous material can be found in column 88 of the Hazardous Materials Table in § 172.101 of the HMR. You should consult the section of the HMR referenced in column 88 for the specific hazardous material you are transporting for the packagings authorized for transportation and any special requirements that also apply.
Additional requirements for transporting bulk quantities of hazardous materials are in Part 173, Subpart B - Preparation of Hazardous Materials for Transportation.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Allan
Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
178.345 |
| 09-0306 |
11-09-2010 |
Cargo Tank, Corrosion, Interpretation |
180.407 |
November 9, 2010
Mr. Danny Shelton
Hazmat Resources, Inc.
10104 Creedmoor Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Ref. No. 09-0306
Dear Mr. Shelton,
This responds to your letter dated December 15, 2009 requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to cargo tanks. Specifically, you describe three scenarios and ask several specific questions for each scenario. The scenarios and questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:
Scenario 1
A motor carrier offers an MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicle to a facility and requests that it perform the required annual tests.
<strong>Q1) Is the CT facility required to open the tank and inspect the inside of the cargo tank for evidence that the tank has transported lading corrosive to the tank?</strong>
A1) No. The CT facility may rely on information provided by the owner/user of the cargo tank to determine if the cargo tank was used to transport material corrosive to the tank. However, the CT facility may elect to perform examinations or tests to determine if the tank transported materials that are corrosive to the tank and/or valves.
<strong>Q2) If a motor carrier advised a CT facility that its tank (MC 331 NQT cargo tank motor vehicle constructed of SA 612 material) was used to transport compressed gas that contained hydrogen sulfide, would an internal inspection be required annually and would a thickness test be required every two years?</strong>
A2) Yes. The phrase "corrosive to the tank or valve" means that the lading has been shown through experience or test data to reduce the thickness of the material of construction of the tank wall or valve (see § 180.403). Experience and test data have shown that hydrogen sulfide is corrosive to carbon steel.
<strong>Q3) If a product causes stress corrosion cracking on the cargo tank wall is that considered corrosive to the tank? If the answer is "yes," does that mean that an internal inspection is required annually and thickness testing is required every two years?</strong>
A3) Yes, stress corrosion cracking on the cargo tank wall is considered a condition that results from material that is corrosive to the tank. All tests and inspections for cargo tanks that transport materials "corrosive to the tank" must be performed in accordance with the schedule specified in Part 180.
<strong>Scenario 2</strong>
A motor carrier offers a DOT 407 unlined cargo tank constructed of 316L Stainless to a CT facility for an annual inspection. The tank was cleaned and purged and all placards were removed before transporting the tank to the facility and it has been determined this tank transports a material that is classified as a corrosive material.
<strong>Q1) If a material is classed as a Class 8 (Corrosive) material, does this mean the material is corrosive to the material of construction of the cargo tank wall and the material of construction of the valve?</strong>
A1) No. The phrase "corrosive to the tank" is explicitly defined in § 180.403 and is not related to the definition of a Class 8 (Corrosive) material in § 173.136.
<strong>Q2) Who is responsible for making the determination that the cargo tank was transporting a material that was corrosive to the tank or valve?</strong>
A2) It is the owner and/or user"s responsibility to ensure that the cargo tank is periodically tested and inspected in accordance with Part 180. Thus, it is the responsibility of the owner and/or user to determine if the cargo tank transports material corrosive to the tank for the purpose of testing and inspection.
<strong>Q3) What tests are required to be performed to confirm the tank was transporting a material corrosive to the tank or valve? If the cargo tank was designed to transport corrosive material without a liner, is that sufficient to make the determination that the material is not corrosive to the cargo tank wall or valve?</strong>
A3) The HMR do not require the performance of specific tests to confirm that a cargo tank has transported a material corrosive to the tank or valve. The fact that a cargo tank was designed to be used without a liner does not provide enough information to conclusively determine whether the tank has been used to transport material corrosive to the tank as defined by the HMR.
<strong>Scenario 3</strong>
A welded repair is performed on a cargo tank. Section 180.413(b) states "The suitability of each repair affecting the structural integrity or lading retention capability of the cargo tank must be determined by the testing required either in the applicable manufacturing specification or in § 180.407(g)(1)(iv). Each repair of a cargo tank involving welding on the shell or head must be certified by a Registered Inspector."
<strong>Q1) What is meant by the phrase "certified by a Registered Inspector" in § 180.413(b)?</strong>
A1) The phrase "certified by a Registered Inspector" in § 180.413(b) means that a Registered Inspector has verified the suitability of the repairs and has determined that the repaired cargo tank meets the prescribed specification through testing required in either the applicable manufacturing specification or in § 180.407(g)(1)(iv) and has stated his findings in writing.
<strong>Q2) What training must a Registered Inspector have in order to certify a welded repair on a cargo tank?</strong>
A2) A Registered Inspector who certifies a welded repair on a cargo tank must meet the minimum qualifications for inspectors and testers in § 180.409 and the knowledge and ability requirements in the definition of a Registered Inspector (see definition in § 171.8).
<strong>Q3) What information must be included on the certification?</strong>
A3) A test and inspection report must include the information specified in § 180.417(b) and/or (c), as appropriate, including the location of defects found; method of repair; and dated signatures of both the Registered Inspector and the cargo tank owner.
<strong>Q4) How long must these certification documents be maintained and who is required to maintain these certification documents?</strong>
A4) Each owner of a cargo tank motor vehicle must retain at the owner's principal place of business all records of repair, modification, stretching, or rebarrelling, including notation of any tests conducted to verify the suitability of the repair, modification, stretching or rebarreling made to each cargo tank during the time the cargo tank motor vehicle is in service and for one year thereafter. Copies of these records must be retained by a motor carrier, if not the owner of the cargo tank motor vehicle, at its principal place of business during the period the cargo tank motor vehicle is in the carrier's service.
<strong>Q5) Under the HMR, the testing may be in accordance with either the applicable manufacturing specification or § 180.407(g)(1)(iv). Does this mean that one can test the repair of an MC 331 QT tank at 2 times the design pressure as required by § 178.337-16(a)?</strong>
A5) Yes. Testing an MC 331(QT) cargo tank at 2 times the design pressure is in accordance with the manufacturing specification.
<strong>Q6) If the answer to Q5 is "yes," and if a person tests the repair on an MC 331 QT tank with a MAWP of 265 psi at 530 psi, is this procedure a violation of §§ 180.407(a)(2) and 180.407(g)(1)(iv)?</strong>
A6) No. The regulations offer the option of either performing the test in accordance with the applicable manufacturing specification or § 180.407(g)(1)(iv). Section 180.407(a)(2) is not relevant to the question since testing the repair requires a pressure test.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this Office.
Sincerely,
Ben Supko
Acting Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.403, 173.136, 180.413, 180.417(b)&(c), 180.407 |
| 00-0336 |
01-08-2001 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation |
180.407 (d) |
January 8, 2001
Mr. John L. Conley Ref. No. 00-0336
Vice President
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
2200 Mill Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Dear Mr. Conley:
This responds to your letter, dated November 29, 2000, concerning cargo tank inspections and tests required by the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).Specifically, you ask if an insulated MC 330 or MC 331 cargo tank must be pressure tested in accordance with § 180.407(d).
The answer is yes. Section 180.407(c) establishes periodic inspection and test requirements for specification cargo tanks. Generally, an MC 330 or MC 331 specification cargo tank must undergo a visual external inspection each year. Section 180.407(d) requires a visual internal inspection in place of the visual external inspection for insulated cargo tanks, except for MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks. However, for cargo tanks, including MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks, for which an internal visual inspection is precluded, either because the tank has an internal lining or coating or is not equipped with a manhole, § 180.407(d) requires the tank to be pressure tested in accordance with § 180.407(c) and (g). Consistent with § 180.407(d), the chart in § 180.407(c) indicates that, except for MC 338 cargo tanks, all cargo tanks that are insulated with no manhole or are insulated and lined must be pressure tested annually.
You are correct that, even where insulation precludes a visual external inspection of the tank shell, a visual external inspection of a cargo tank's piping, valves, gaskets, manholes, emergency devices, remote closures, and all major appurtenances and structural attachments must be conducted in accordance with § 180.407(d)(2). The cargo tank must be marked as specified in § 180.415 to indicate successful completion of the visual external inspection.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Allan
Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 00-0348 |
05-11-2001 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation |
180.407 (d) |
May 11, 2001
Mr. Clifford J. Harvison Ref. No. 00-0348
President
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
2200 Mill Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Dear Mr. Harvison:
This responds to your letter, dated November 27, 2000, concerning cargo tank inspections and tests required by the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 40 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask about testing and marking requirements for insulated cargo tanks that are tested in accordance with § 180.407(d).
Section 180.407(c) establishes periodic inspection and test requirements for specification cargo tanks. Generally, an MC 330, MC 331, and MC 338 cargo tank must undergo a visual external inspection each year. Section 180.407(d) requires a visual internal inspection in place of the visual external inspection for an insulated cargo tank, except for an MC 330 or MC 331 cargo tank. However, for a cargo tank, including an MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank, for which an internal visual inspection is precluded, either because the tank has an internal lining or coating or is not equipped with a manhole, § 180.407(d) requires the tank to be pressure tested in accordance with § 180.407(c) and (g). Consistent with § 180.407(d), the chart in § 180.407(c) indicates that, except for MC 338 cargo tanks, all cargo tank that are insulated with no manhole or are insulated and lined must be pressure tested annually. An MC 338 cargo tank need only be pressure tested every five years. A cargo tank that is successfully pressure tested in accordance with § 180.407(g) in lieu of a visual internal inspection must be marked with a “P” and the month and year of the test (see § 180.415).
Even where insulation precludes a visual external inspection of the tank shell, a visual external inspection of a cargo tank's piping, valves, gaskets, manholes, emergency devices, remote closures, and all major appurtenances and structural attachments must be conducted in accordance with § 180.407(d)(2). The cargo tank must be marked as specified in § 180.415 to indicate successful completion of the visual external inspection.
I hope this satisfies your request.
Sincerely
Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 03-0241 |
01-30-2004 |
Cargo Tank, Chlorine, External Inspection, Interpretation, MC 331 |
180.407 (d) |
Jan 30, 2004
Ms. Carol Kaufman Reference No. 03-0241
Senior Environmental Specialist
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
Los Angeles, California 90012
Dear Ms. Kaufman:
This responds to your inquiry regarding the requirements for inspection and testing of MC-331 cargo tanks containing chlorine under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). This is a follow-up to your telephone conversation with Phil Olson of our Office of Hazardous Materials Technology regarding required inspection and testing requirements for DOT specification MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMVs) as they relate to amendments adopted in a final rule published on April 18, 2003 [Docket HM-213, effective October 1, 2003].
You state that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), a public water provider, uses DOT specification MC 331 CTMVs in chlorine service. Annually, in accordance with § 1 80.407, the MWD conducts a partial, visual external inspection of the steel cargo tank (insulation prevents a complete visual external inspection) and records the results in inspection reports. A visual internal inspection is not conducted concurrently, as every two years the cargo tanks are subjected to hydrostatic pressure testing and leakage tests. You ask if the annual, partial visual external inspection of an insulated MC 331 cargo tank used in chlorine service, combined with pressure and leakage testing every two years, complies with the requirements at §180.407(d).
Section 180.407 of the HMR contains the requalification requirements for DOT specification CTMVs. Paragraph (c) of this section includes a table that establishes test and inspection intervals for different types of CTMVs. Paragraphs (d) through (i) of this section describe how each required test and inspection must be performed. Section 180.407 must be read in its entirety in order to ascertain which tests and inspections are required for a specific CTMV.
On April 18, 2003, the Research and Special Programs Administration published a final rule [68 FR 19258; Docket HM-213; effective October 1, 2003] adopting a number of revisions to the HMR to update and clarify the regulations on the construction and maintenance of CTMVs. Paragraph (d)(1) of §180.407 was revised to provide the correct references for hydrostatic and pneumatic testing of cargo tanks, where a visual inspection is precluded because the cargo tank is lined, coated, insulated or designed so as to, prevent access for external or internal inspection.
Paragraph (d) of § 180.407 sets forth requirements for the performance of an external visual inspection. Paragraph (d)(1) generally requires an internal visual inspection in accordance with paragraph (e) of § 180.407 in place of the external visual inspection where insulation precludes performance of the external visual inspection. The table in § 180.407(c) is consistent with paragraph (d)(1); in accordance with the table, insulated cargo tanks are required to have an internal visual inspection every year. Note, however, that MC 331 CTMVs are excepted from this requirement. Instead, MC 331 CTMVs are required to have an internal visual inspection every five years.
You are correct that under the HMR, as amended by the HM-213 final rule, you need not perform an annual internal visual inspection of your insulated MC 331 CTMVS in place of the annual external visual inspection. An annual, partial visual external inspection, combined with pressure and leakage testing performed every two years in accordance with paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of § 180.407, satisfies the test and inspection requirements applicable to MC 331 CTMVs in chlorine service. We note that this test and inspection regimen includes an internal visual inspection as part of the pressure test. Taken together, the test and inspection procedures utilized by MWD assures frequent evaluation of the integrity of the cargo tank while minimizing atmospheric exposure that could accelerate corrosion (which could be a potential consequence of an annual visual internal inspection).
I hope this information is helpful. If can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Mazzullo
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 04-0221 |
10-01-2004 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation, MC 331 |
180.407 |
Oct 1, 2004
Mr. R. J. McGrath
Technical Manager
Compressed Gas Association, Inc. Reference No. 04-0221
4221 Walney Road, 5th Floor
Chantilly, VA 20151-2923
Dear Mr. McGrath:
This responds to your August 23, 2004 letter regarding the requirements for inspection and testing of insulated MC-331 cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMVs) containing carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid under § 180.407 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You expressed concern about your members having to perform annual internal visual inspections on their MC 331 CTMVs based on amendments to the HMR adopted in final rules published under Docket No. RSPA 98-3554 (HM-213) on April 18 and September 3, 2003.
As shown in the table in § 180.407(c) of the HMR, insulated MC 331 CTMVs are excepted from the requirement to have an annual internal visual inspection. This exception granted for MC 330, MC 331, and MC 338 cargo tanks was not removed under the HM-213 final rule. Insulated MC 331 CTMVs are required to have an internal visual inspection at least once every five years. Because the insulation prevents a complete external visual inspection, those items able to be externally inspected must be inspected annually in accordance with 180.407(d) and noted in the inspection report. The annual, partial external visual inspection and a leakage test performed in accordance with § 180.407 (h) fulfill the annual inspection and test requirements applicable to MC 331 CTMVs in carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid service.
The HM-213 final rule amended the HMR to clarify the external visual inspection requirements for insulated cargo tanks other than the insulated MC 330, MC 331, and MC 338s. As amended, the HMR allows insulated cargo tanks equipped with manholes or inspection openings to have either an internal visual inspection in conjunction with a partial external visual inspection or a hydrostatic or pneumatic pressure test. See note 4 following the table in § 1 80.407(c) and paragraph (d)(1).
I hope this information is helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Mazzullo
Director, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards
180.407(c) |
| 04-0226 |
12-23-2004 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Thickness Test |
180.407(d)(1) |
Dec 23, 2004
Mr. Marvin M. Miller Reference No.: 04-0226
Operations Manager
Service Department
Beau Transport Equipment Co.
8801 North Vancouver Avenue
Portland, OR 97217
Dear Mr. Miller:
This responds to your September 30, 2004 letter requesting clarification of the requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to periodic testing and inspection of specification cargo tanks. In particular, you are concerned about the requirements in § 180.407(d) applicable to insulated cargo tanks and specifically § 180.407(d)(4) applicable to external ring stiffeners installed on insulated cargo tanks.
Section 180.407(c) requires all specification cargo tanks to have an external visual inspection at least once each year. Where insulation precludes an external inspection, MC 330, 331, and 338 cargo tanks may be given either an internal visual inspection in conjunction with the external visual inspection or a hydrostatic or pneumatic pressure-test (see the chart entitled Compliance Dates — Inspections and Test Under § 180.407(c)). Insulated cargo tanks that are lined, coated, or designed so that access to the interior of the tank is not possible must be pressure tested in accordance with § 1 80.407(g)(1 )(iv) at the applicable time interval provided in § 180.407(c) (see § 1 80.407(d)( 1)). In instances where insulation precludes a complete external visual examination of the tank shell, a visual external inspection of a cargo tank’s piping, valves, gaskets, manholes, emergency devices, remote closures, and all major appurtenances and structural attachments must be conducted in accordance with § 180.407(d)(2) and included in the test report.
In accordance with § 180.407(d)(4), for cargo tanks constructed of mild steel or high- strength, low -alloy steel, external ring stiffeners and other appurtenances that create air cavities adjacent to the tank shell that do not allow for an external visual inspection of the tank shell must be thickness tested in four symmetrically distributed locations at least once every two years. This provision applies to both insulated and non-insulated tanks. On insulated tanks where the insulation may preclude the thickness test, you may need to remove the insulation jacket surrounding the ring stiffeners in order to comply with this requirement. You should also note that the exception provided in § 180.407(d)(1) authorizing alternate means to comply with the provisions contained in paragraphs (d)(2) thru (d)(6) of § 180.407 does not apply to thickness testing of the ring stiffeners or other appurtenances.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.
Sincerely,
John A. Gale
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407(d)(1) |
| 04-0230 |
11-09-2004 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, MC 338, Pressure Test |
180.407 |
MEMO
Date: Nov 9, 2004
Reply to Attn. of: 04-0230
Subject: Request for Interpretation
From: John A. Gale
Chief, Regulations Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
To: Danny Shelton
Cargo Tank Program Manager
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
This responds to your October 1, 2004 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the requirements for test and inspector of MC 338 cargo tanks. Specifically, you ask whether a pressure test should be performed as part of the annual visual inspection requirement for insulated MC 338 cargo tanks. You also request the specific reference in the HMR that indicates MC 338 cargo tanks need only be pressure-tested every five years.
Section 180.407 of the HMR contains the requalification requirements for DOT specification cargo tanks. Paragraph (c) of this section includes a table that establishes test and inspection intervals for different types of cargo tanks. Paragraphs (d) through (i) of this section describe how each prescribed test must be performed. Section 180.407 must be read in its entirety in order to ascertain which tests and inspections are required for a specific cargo tank.
Paragraph (d) of § 180.407 sets forth requirements for the performance of an external visual inspection. Paragraph (d)(I) generally requires an internal visual inspection in accordance with paragraph (e) of § 180.407 in place of the external visual inspection where insulation precludes performance of the external visual inspection. Paragraph (d)(I) further requires that for cargo tanks where a visual internal inspection is not possible, because the cargo tank is lined, coated, OJ designed so as to prevent access for an internal visual inspection, the tank must be pressure tested in accordance with § 180.407(g)(I)(iv). The table in § 180A07(c) is consistent with paragraph (d)(I); in accordance with the table, insulated cargo tanks must be pressure tested every year. Note, however, that MC 338 cargo tanks are excepted from this requirement. Instead, as indicated in the table under the entry for pressure test requirements for "all other cargo tanks," MC 338 cargo tanks are required to have a pressure test every five years.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. |
| 06-0034 |
07-31-2006 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation, MC 331 |
180.407(c) |
Jul 31, 2006
Mr. Thomas P. Lynch Reference No. 06-0034
Vice President and General Counsel
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
2200 Mill Rd.
Alexandria, VA 22314
Dear Mr. Lynch:
This is in response to your letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 17 1-180) regarding the applicability of an exception allowing cargo tank motor vehicles to undergo a partial external visual inspection and a leakage test to fulfill annual test and inspection requirements. You ask whether the exception applies to all materials being transported in insulated MC 330 and MC 331 cal-go tank motor vehicles and, in particular, to the transportation of pyrophoric materials.
The answer is yes. The table in § 180.407(c) excepts insulated MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles from the internal visual inspection requirement and this exception applies to all hazardous materials being transported in insulated MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles. These cargo tank motor vehicles are required to have an internal visual inspection at least once every five years in conjunction with the pressure test. Because the insulation prevents a complete external visual inspection, those items able to be externally inspected must be inspected annually in accordance with § 180.407(d) and noted in the inspection report. The annual, partial external visual inspection and a leakage test performed in accordance with § 180.407(h) fulfill :he annual inspection and test requirements applicable to insulated MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles. Once the external visual inspection and leakage test have been successfully completed, the tank may be marked in accordance with § 180.415(b)).
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office should you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407(c) |
| 07-0034 |
09-20-2007 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Marking |
173.315 |
SEP 20, 2007
Captain Bruce Bugg Ref. No. 07-0034
Georgia Department of Public Safety
Motor Carrier Compliance Division
P.O. Box 1456
Atlanta, GA 30371-1456
Dear Captain Bugg:
This responds to your February 12, 2007 letter requesting clarification on the applicability of § 172.328(d) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask if this section applies to any cargo tank that is equipped with remote emergency closures, or only to specification cargo tanks that are required to have self-closing internal stop valves.
Section 172.328(d) requires that after October 3, 2005, each on-vehicle manually-activated remote shutoff device for closure of the internal self-closing stop valve must be identified by marking "Emergency Shutoff" in letters at least 0.75 inches in height, in a color that contrasts with its background, and located in an area immediately adjacent to the means of closure. This requirement applies to any cargo tank that is equipped with remote emergency closures. These cargo tanks include MC 330 and MC 331 specification cargo tanks under Part 180, Subpart E, as well as non specification cargo tanks carrying liquefied petroleum gas in accordance with provisions in § 173.315(k).
I hope this answers your inquiry.
Sincerely,
John A. Gale
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
172.328(d), 173.315(k) |
| 08-0097 |
12-30-2008 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation |
180.407 |
December 30, 2008
Mr. Anthony Reid
C&R Fleet Services, Inc.
353 O"Dell Road
Griffin, Georgia 30224
Ref. No.: 08-0097
Dear Mr. Reid:
This responds to your letter regarding whether Registered Inspectors performing requalification inspections in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), §180.407, specifically VKIP tests on a cargo tank motor vehicle, must also comply with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulations (FMCSR), § 396.21, Subchapter B, Appendix G, known as "Annual" inspection. This inspection covers components such as brake system, coupling devices, exhaust system, fuel system, lighting devices, safe loading, steering mechanism, suspension, frame, tires, wheels and rims, windshield glazing, and windshield wipers.
The HMR do not require DOT Registered Inspectors to perform compliance reviews subject to Part 396 of the FMCSR. Also, a person who performs only the inspections specified in Part 396 of the FMCSR is not required to be a DOT Registered Inspector. As a matter of courtesy, if a Registered Inspector observes deficiencies in the components covered by the FMCSR inspection, the inspector should bring it to the motor carrier"s or owner"s attention.
I hope this information is helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Betts
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 14-0110 |
07-22-2014 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation |
180.407(d), 180.407(e), 180.407(c), 180.407(d)(1) |
July 22, 2014
Mr. Danny Shelton
President
HazMat Resources, Inc.
124 Rainbow Drive, Suite 2471
Livingston, TX 77399-1024
Ref. No.: 14-0110
Dear Mr. Shelton,
This is in response to your email dated May 27, 2014, requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) relating to the visual inspection of cargo tanks fitted with an external vinyl wrap.
In your letter you describe a scenario in which cargo tanks are wrapped in vinyl for advertising and or aesthetic purposes. It is your understanding that because the tank exterior is covered by the vinyl wrap, the tank cannot be completely inspected during an external visual inspection in accordance with § 180.407(d) and as such, would be subject to an annual internal visual inspection in accordance with § 180.407(e). Specifically, you ask if an external visual inspection may be performed on a vinyl wrapped cargo tank; or if a combination external and internal inspection may be performed to account for areas of the cargo tank that are covered by the vinyl wrap and not readily visible from the exterior.
Section 180.407(c) requires all specification cargo tanks to have an external visual inspection at least once each year. As provided in § 180.407(d)(1), if external visual inspection is precluded because any part of the cargo tank wall is externally lined, coated, or designed to prevent an external visual inspection, those areas of the cargo tank must be internally inspected. Therefore, in the scenario you describe where a vinyl wrap precludes an external inspection of certain areas of the cargo tank, the areas covered by vinyl wrap that prevent external inspection must be internally inspected in conjunction with the external visual inspection for the remaining areas of the cargo tank.
I trust this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Shane C. Kelley
Acting International Standards Coordinator
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.407(d), 180.407(e), 180.407(c), 180.407(d)(1) |
| 14-0072 |
06-05-2014 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation |
180.407 |
Mr. David Ford
200 Hardy Ivy Way
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Ref. No. 14-0072
Dear Mr. Ford:
This responds to your letter dated March 25, 2014 requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) regarding cargo tanks. Specifically, you seek clarification on venting, purging and inspection requirements for cargo tank motor vehicles. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:
Q1. Since § 178.345-1(i)(2) was revised in a final rule under Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0151 (HM-218F; 76 FR 43532) to permit the top vents on Specification DOT 406, 407 and 412 cargo tank motor vehicles to be plugged, and § 180.405(c)(2)(ii) authorizes Specification MC 306 cargo tank pressure relief devices and outlets to conform to those authorized for a Specification DOT 406 cargo tank, may the top void vent on an MC 306 cargo tank be plugged and capped, as long as the bottom void vent is open?
A1. The answer to your question is yes. On July 20, 2011, § 178.345-1(i)(2) was revised in final rule HM-218F because it was determined that requiring an opening on top of a cargo tank to vent vapors that accumulate in the void space may be unsafe. The preamble of HM-218F states:
“In many instances, such as with gasoline, the vapors are heavier than air and it is not necessary to require cargo tanks to be vented to the atmosphere through a vent located near the top centerline. In addition, venting voids through the top of a cargo tank may cause premature corrosion of the void space as a result of water penetration. Allowing the vent to be plugged will also make it easier to identify when there is actually a leak in the bulkhead. Hazardous materials leaking from the drain will cause an obvious stain/dirt buildup that, with the top vent plugged, cannot be a result of water draining from the top vent and must be a leaking bulkhead.”
For this reason, PHMSA revised § 178.345-1 to clearly indicate that any void area within the connecting structure of a cargo tank between double bulk heads must be vented to the atmosphere through the required drain or through a separate vent. Therefore, like Specification DOT 406, 407 and 412 cargo tank motor vehicles, the top void vent on an MC 306 cargo tank may be plugged and capped, provided that the bottom void vent is open.
Q2. Would a cargo tank be considered to be “cleaned and purged” if the dome lids are left open to allow the tank to air out?
A2. For the purposes of the HMR, "cleaned and purged" means no residual material and no residual vapor remaining in the interior of a packaging. Section 180.413(a)(2) requires that “prior to each repair, modification, stretching, rebarrelling, or mounting, the cargo tank motor vehicle must be emptied of any hazardous material lading.” In addition, cargo tank motor vehicles used to transport flammable or toxic lading must be sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapors so any potential hazard is removed, including void spaces between double bulkheads, piping and vapor recovery systems.”
Further, as stated in § 173.29, a packaging would be empty when is it sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapors to remove any potential hazard. The HMR do not define a specific method of cleaning and purging because methods vary depending on the nature of the hazardous material and the type of packaging. It should be noted that ultimately, under § 173.22, it is the shipper's responsibility to properly classify a hazardous material and this would include classification of a residue of hazardous material.
Q3. For vacuum loaded cargo tanks with full opening rear heads, § 180.407(c) requires a pressure test every two years and an internal inspection every five years; however, § 180.407(g) requires an external visual inspection and an internal visual inspection to be conducted at the same time as the pressure test. Does this mean that the internal visual inspection is required every two years in conjunction with the pressure test?
A3. The answer to your question is yes. In the scenario you describe, internal inspection would be required every two years in conjunction with the pressure test.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Robert Benedict
Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division |
| 14-0164 |
04-13-2015 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation |
180.407(b)(1) and (2), 180.411, 180.407(b), 171.2 (i) |
March 13, 2015
Mr. Tracey Smith
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
PCS Sales (USA), Inc.
1101 Skokie Blvd., Suite 400
Northbrook, IL 60062
Ref. No. 14-0164
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is in response to your September 3, 2014 email regarding insulated cargo tank requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). Specifically, you are concerned whether the conditions requiring test and inspection of a specification cargo tank under § 180.407(b)(1) and (2) apply to the jacket on an insulated cargo tank. Your questions regarding the jacket of an insulated cargo tank are paraphrased and answered as follows:
<div>
Q1. Do the criteria for dents under § 180.411 apply to the jacket of an insulated cargo tank?
A1. No, the acceptable results of tests and inspections found in §180.411 do not apply to the jacket of an insulated cargo tank. However, damage to the jacket may indicate that there is damage to the cargo tank, and additional inspection should occur.
Q2. If the insulated cargo tank’s jacket is not weather tight because of a tear, gouge, or dent in the jacket, is it still acceptable to load the cargo tank?
A2. The answer is no. As stated in § 180.407(b), a cargo tank must be tested and inspected prior to further use if there is evidence of an unsafe condition, specifically, if it shows evidence of dents, cuts, gouges, corroded or abraded areas, leakage, or any other condition that might render it unsafe for hazardous materials service. We consider a tear, gouge, or dent in the insulating jacket as evidence of a condition that might render it unsafe for hazardous materials service. Thus, a cargo tank fitted with an insulating jacket that has evidence of a tear, gouge, or dent must be tested and inspected prior to further use.
Furthermore, the jacket of an insulated cargo tank must satisfy the thermal insulation requirements of the DOT specification. Damage to the jacket may indicate that the jacket is no longer satisfactorily performing this function and must be restored to its intended condition according to its specification.
Q3. Prior to loading, who is responsible for inspecting the cargo tank for dents and to ensure the package is acceptable; the loading facility or the carrier?
A3. Section 171.2 (i) states that no person may certify that a hazardous material is offered for transportation in commerce in accordance with the requirements of the HMR unless the hazardous material is properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements of this subchapter or an exemption or special permit, approval, or registration issued under this subchapter or subchapter A of this chapter. The qualification and maintenance requirements for a DOT specification cargo tank are applicable to any person responsible for the continuing qualification, maintenance or periodic testing of a cargo tank. Each person who offers a package containing a hazardous material for transportation in commerce in accordance with the HMR must assure that the package remains in condition for shipment until it is in the possession of the carrier.
</div>
I trust this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Dirk Der Kinderen
Acting Chief, Standard Development
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.407(b)(1) and (2), 180.411, 180.407(b), 171.2 (i) |
| 15-0021 |
08-12-2015 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation |
173.185(c)(3)(ii) |
August 12, 2015
Samuel S. Elkind
Corporate Regulated Goods Manager
United Parcel Service
55 Glenlake Parkway, NE.
Atlanta, GA 30328-3474
Ref. No. 15-0021
Dear Mr. Elkind:
This responds to your January 27, 2015 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you request clarification on hazard communication requirements in § 173.185(c)(3)(ii) regarding lithium cells or batteries.
Section 173.185(c)(3)(ii) requires that shipments of lithium cells or batteries in several configurations must be accompanied by a document that contains information specified in the regulations. You state that some customers suggest the provisions in § 173.185(c)(3)(ii) may be satisfied by enclosing the document within the package containing the lithium cells or batteries. You state that you are aware of the opinion voiced by PHMSA representatives at public meetings that the document is intended to be used away from the package. Finally, you state that you are aware that when you tender a shipment of lithium cells or batteries to a commercial airline for transport to its final destination, the document must be furnished to the interline air carrier. You seek clarification whether a document contained inside a package would satisfy the requirements of § 173.185(c)(3)(ii).
While not recommended by PHMSA, it is not prohibited to place the document in the package in accordance with requirements in § 173.185(c)(3)(ii). This document may also be transmitted attached to the package (for example, in an accessible pouch affixed to the package) or may be transmitted separately to the carrier in a manner that permits the information to be produced as a paper document without delay.
I hope this satisfies your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact this Office at 202-366-8553.
Sincerely,
Dirk Der Kinderen
Acting Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
173.185(c)(3)(ii) |
| 15-0226 |
04-14-2016 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation |
180.407, 180.407(d)(1), 180.407(d)(2) through (d)(7), 171.8, 180.409 |
April 14, 2016
Jim Lawson
Tri Tank Corporation
115 Farrell Road
Syracuse, NY 13209
Ref. No. 15-0226
Dear Mr. Lawson:
This responds to your email of November 18, 2015 requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the external visual inspection of cargo tanks. In your request, you ask whether paint used to cover the exterior of a cargo tank could be considered a “coating.”
For purposes of § 180.407, paint may preclude an external visual inspection. Specifically,
§ 180.407(d)(1) states, “[i]f external visual inspection is precluded because any part of the cargo tank wall is externally lined, coated, or designed to prevent an external visual inspection, those areas of the cargo tank must be internally inspected.” Therefore, one must consider whether the application of paint on the exterior of a cargo tank wall prevents the performance of an external visual inspection that conforms to the requirements of the HMR (e.g., §§ 180.407(d)(2) through (d)(7)).
It is the opinion of this Office that the Registered Inspector (as defined in § 171.8), or other appropriate person meeting the requirements of § 180.409, would determine whether the paint has covered certain areas of the cargo tank wall in such a way that prevents a proper external visual inspection from being performed. If the Registered Inspector determines that the application of paint does indeed prevent a proper external visual inspection, an internal visual inspection of those areas affected by the paint would be required in conjunction with the external visual inspection for the remaining areas of the cargo tank wall.
I hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact this Office again.
Sincerely,
Dirk Der Kinderen
Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.407, 180.407(d)(1), 180.407(d)(2) through (d)(7), 171.8, 180.409 |
| 15-0078 |
06-25-2015 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation |
172.328(b), 172.101, 172.304 |
June 25, 2015
Mr. Michael Polinski
Maryland Department of Environment
1800 Washington Blvd, Suite 105
Baltimore, MD 21230
Ref. No. 15-0078
Dear Mr. Polinski:
This responds to your April 23, 2015 email requesting clarification of the marking requirements for a cargo tank under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You indicate that a cargo tank is marked with the company name on each side and the company name happens to contain the proper shipping name (PSN) of the material being transported. Each end is marked with "propane." Specifically, you ask whether use of the company name containing the PSN satisfies the requirement to mark a cargo tank transporting a Class 2 material with the PSN or an appropriate common name for the material under § 172.328(b).
The answer is no. Section 172.328(b) states that each cargo tank transporting Class 2 material must be marked on each side and each end with the proper shipping name specified in the § 172.101 table or an appropriate common name of the material. In addition, § 172.304 marking requirements provide that markings must be located away from any other marking (such as advertising) that could <em>substantially reduce its effectiveness</em> (emphasis added). The scenario discussed is unique in that the required marking is part of another marking (i.e., advertising). Under this scenario, the "located away from" condition cannot be achieved. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Office that the company name marking cannot be used to satisfy the PSN marking even though the name may indeed contain the required PSN as part of the name.
I trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Dirk Der Kinderen
Acting Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
172.328(b), 172.101, 172.304 |
| 15-0079 |
05-02-2016 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation |
180.407, 180.407(d)(2)(viii), 178.320(a), 178.345-1(c), 178.320, 397.17 |
May 2, 2016
Mr. Kerry M. Fitzgerald
Renaldo Sales & Service, Inc.
1770 Milestrip Road
North Collins, NY 14111
Reference No. 15-0079
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
This letter is in response to your April 10, 2015, letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the inspection of cargo tank components as required by § 180.407. Your questions have been paraphrased and answered as follows:
Q1. What is the meaning of “suspension system attachments” and “connecting structures” as these words are used in § 180.407(d)(2)(viii)?
A1. Section 180.407(d)(2)(viii) requires that all major appurtenances and structural parts directly attached to the cargo tank shell, including suspension system attachments and connecting structures, must be inspected for any corrosion or damage as part of the cargo tank’s external visual inspection and testing. The HMR do not define “suspension system attachments.”
The HMR define “connecting structure” in §§ 178.320(a) and 178.345-1(c) as “the structure joining two cargo tanks” in one multiple-tank cargo tank. The requirements in § 178.320 apply to all DOT-specification cargo tanks and, therefore, also apply to the external visual inspection and testing of cargo tanks in § 180.407(d)(2)(viii).
Q2. If a cargo tank’s chassis suspension system (i.e., springs, U-bolts, axles, wheel drums, tires, steering controls, brakes) is meant to be inspected under § 180.407, exactly what components of this system are required to be included in that inspection?
A2. The inspection required under § 180.407 of the HMR is limited to both those structures directly attached to the cargo tank shell and those having a direct impact on the integrity of the tank itself, including those that attach the cargo tank to the chassis. Other components of a cargo tank motor vehicle’s chassis, suspension system, and running gear are described in and required to be inspected under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR; see 49 CFR, Subtitle B, Chapter III, Subchapter B, Appendix G—Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards).
Q3. It is my understanding that the HMR require inspections of cargo tanks and their components to occur on a pass/fail basis. If this is the case, should inspections concerning cargo tank “suspension system attachments” include the inspection requirements prescribed in 49 CFR 397.17 (Tires)?
A3. Your understanding is correct. The HMR require the inspection of a cargo tank’s attachment to a cargo tank to occur on a pass/fail basis. However, the FMCSR require the regulation and inspection of a cargo tank’s tires, lights, brake lines, etc., as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 396, with requirements for tire maintenance further specified in § 397.17, as you stated.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.407, 180.407(d)(2)(viii), 178.320(a), 178.345-1(c), 178.320, 397.17 |
| 16-0049 |
08-04-2016 |
Cargo Tank, External Inspection, Interpretation |
180.407(d)(1), 180.407(d), 180.407(c), 180.407(d)(2), 171.8 |
August 4, 2016
Mr. James Theriot
Slade’s Industrial Services, Inc.
1626 U.S. Highway 190 West
Port Allen, LA 70767
Reference No. 16-0049
Dear Mr. Theriot:
This letter is in response to your February 29, 2016, letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to visual inspection requirements for cargo tanks with an external vinyl wrap. Specifically, you reference a letter of interpretation on this subject that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued on July 22, 2014, under Reference No. 14-0110. PHMSA issued another letter of interpretation on this subject on April 14, 2016, under Reference No. 15-0226.
We have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:
Q1. Would a cargo tank covered with an external vinyl wrap such that it displays a 2-foot decal on both sides of the tank need to be internally inspected annually?
A1. Any portion of the cargo tank that is covered with an external lining (such as a vinyl wrap), coated (such as with paint), or designed in a manner that prevents it from external inspection must be internally inspected in conformance with § 180.407(d)(1) in conjunction with the external visual inspection for the remaining areas of the cargo tank. The “Compliance Dates” table in § 180.407(c) prescribes the time period for the external visual inspection as six months for cargo tanks designed to be loaded by vacuum with full opening rear heads and one year for all other cargo tanks. Further, those areas of the cargo tank that are able to be externally inspected must be externally inspected in conformance with § 180.407(d), and the results of this inspection must be subsequently noted in the cargo tank’s inspection report.
Q2. Do cargo tanks that are painted need to be internally inspected annually?
A2. Cargo tanks painted in a manner that prevents them from being externally inspected must be internally inspected as stated in A1. See § 180.407(d)(1).
Q3. Would a stick-on placard—or any other type of decal or sticker—have to be removed from a cargo tank?
A3. The answer is no. However, as noted in A1, if a stick-on placard, decal, or sticker prevents areas of the cargo tank from being inspected externally, those areas must be given an internal inspection in conformance with § 180.407(d)(1).
Q4. If a stick-on placard is not removed, do the HMR require the cargo tank to have an internal visual inspection?
A4. The answer is yes. See A3.
Q5. Would a cargo tank with an exterior that is anything other than bare metal require an internal inspection annually?
A5. Section 180.407(d)(1) states, “[i]f external visual inspection is precluded because any part of the cargo tank wall is externally lined, coated, or designed to prevent an external visual inspection, those areas of the cargo tank must be internally inspected.” Therefore, one must consider whether the application of paint on the exterior of a cargo tank wall prevents the performance of an external visual inspection that conforms to the requirements of the HMR (e.g., § 180.407(d)(2) through (d)(7)). It is the opinion of this Office that the Registered Inspector (as defined in § 171.8), or other appropriate person meeting the requirements of § 180.409, would determine whether the paint has covered certain areas of the cargo tank wall in such a way that prevents a proper external visual inspection from being performed. If the Registered Inspector determines that the application of paint does indeed prevent a proper external visual inspection, an internal visual inspection of those areas affected by the paint would be required in conjunction with the external visual inspection for the remaining areas of the cargo tank wall prescribed in § 180.407(c).
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standard and Rulemaking Division
180.407(d)(1), 180.407(d), 180.407(c), 180.407(d)(2), 171.8 |
| 10-0189 |
10-28-2011 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Lining Inspection |
173.315, 180.407, 180.407(f), 180.417 |
October 28, 2011
Mr. Jim Poulsen
Supervisor
Oak Point Service
272 Oak Point Hwy
Winnipeg, MB R2R 1V1
Ref. No.: 10-0189
Dear Mr. Poulsen:
This responds to your letter regarding the requirements under the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR 171-180) applicable to cargo tank motor vehicle (CTMV) linings,
emergency discharge control equipment and a "dated signature" required on an inspection
report. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:
Q1. Do the requirements regarding CTMV linings and coatings specify that any "coating" which is 15 mils or more is considered a lining, and which must be inspected using a "spark tester?"
A1. The answer is no. In accordance with the HMR, cargo tank motor vehicle linings must be inspected as specified in § 180.407(f). The integrity of the lining on all lined cargo tanks, when lining is required, must be verified at least once each year. Rubber (elastomeric material) linings must be tested for holes. The equipment used to test rubber linings must consist of a high frequency "spark tester" capable of producing sufficient voltage to ensure proper calibration. Linings made of other than rubber must be tested using equipment and procedures prescribed by the lining manufacturer or lining installer (See
§ 180.407(f)(1) and (f)(2)).
Q2. In a C or A train configuration, is the passive shutdown system (more specifically the Smart Hose) as described in § 173.315(n)(2) required to be carried on each lead trailer and the pup trailer even though only "one" trailer is unloaded at any one time or will one smart hose suffice?
A2. The answer is yes. In a C or A train configuration (i.e., a truck tractor pulling more than one trailer connected by "A" or "C" dolly), each cargo tank motor vehicle (CTMV) in liquefied compressed gas service is required to have an emergency discharge control capability. A CTMV in other than metered delivery service must have a means to automatically shut off the flow of product without the need for human intervention within 20 seconds of an unintentional release caused by a complete separation of liquid delivery hose (passive shut down capability).
If a CTMV operating in both metered and non-metered delivery service is equipped with a passive means of shut down that meets the requirements in § 173.315(n)(2) and functions for both types of deliveries, then it need not also be equipped with an off-truck remote means of shut down. However, if the passive means of shutdown only function for non-metered deliveries, then the CTMV must also be equipped with an off-truck remote shutdown system.
Q3. In § 180.417 (b)(2)(x), it states that each inspection report must have "dated signature" of the registered inspector and the cargo tank owner. Can a representative (employee) of the cargo tank owner date and sign the inspection reports?
A3. The answer is yes. A test and inspection report must include the information specified in § 180.417(b) and/or (c), as appropriate, including the location of defects found; method of repair; and dated signatures of both the Registered Inspector and the cargo tank owner. An owner means the person who owns a cargo tank motor vehicle used for the transportation of hazardous materials, or that person"s authorized agent (See §180.403). A representative (employee/authorized agent) of the cargo tank owner may date and sign the inspection reports on behalf of the cargo tank owner.
Thank you for the information that CGA Technical Bulletin TB-2 (Guidelines for Inspection and
Repair of MC-330 and MC-331 Cargo Tanks) referenced in §§ 180.407 and 180.413 is being
Replaced by CGA P-26.
I hope this information is helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Ben Supko
Acting Chief, Standards Development
Standards and rulemaking Division
173.315, 180.407, 180.417 |
| 06-0260 |
02-25-2008 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Leakage Test |
180.407(h)(3), 178.337-8(a)(4) |
Mr. David Jones
Owner
D.J."s Truck Repair, Inc.
7202 Herter Industrial Drive
Godfrey, IL 62035
Ref. No. 06-0260
Dear Mr. Jones:
This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the rejection criteria when performing a leakage test on a cargo tank motor vehicle that is used primarily for the transportation of compressed gases, such as anhydrous ammonia and propane, under the Hazardous materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask if the back flow check valve installed on a product inlet opening (spray fill line) is considered a self-closing stop valve and, therefore, must be leak tight when leak tested under § 180.407(h). You state that when the liquid valve is opened while testing the product piping system under pressure, the back flow check valve will often leak. I apologize for the delay in responding and hope it has not caused any inconvenience.
Under § 178.337-8(a)(3), each product inlet opening must be fitted with a back flow check valve or an internal self-closing stop valve located inside the cargo tank or inside a welded nozzle that is an integral part of the cargo tank. Under the leakage test requirements in § 180.407(h), only internal or external self-closing stop valves and product piping and delivery hoses are required to be tested for leak tightness under pressure. Therefore, a back flow check valve is not required to be leak tight and would need not be considered under the rejection criteria under § 180.407(h)(3).
I trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407(h)(3), 178.337-8(a)(4) |
| 00-0036 |
03-16-2001 |
Anhydrous Ammonia, Interpretation |
173.315 |
March 16, 2001
Trooper William I. Reese Ref No. 00-0036
Idaho State Police
Hazardous Materials Specialist
5205 South 5th Avenue
Pocatello, ID 83204
Dear Trooper Reese:
This is in reference to your letter dated January 21, 2000, in which you raised several questions concerning the use of a non-DOT specification cargo tank motor vehicle for the transportation of anhydrous ammonia or liquefied petroleum gas under the provisions in 49 CFR 173.315(a), Note 17, or (k), respectively. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your questions are paraphrased and answered in the order posed in your letter.
Q1. Under the provisions for the transportation of anhydrous ammonia prescribed in § 173.315(a), Note 17, may a nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle be used in a state that had no specific state laws that allowed or addressed its use prior to January 1, 1981?
A1. The answer is yes. The continued use of a nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle transporting anhydrous ammonia is permitted under the following conditions: (1) the state had not adopted the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 17 1 180) prior to January 1, 1981; (2) the state's laws that were in effect prior to January 1, 1981, permitted or never prohibited the use of a nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle for the transportation of anhydrous ammonia, and (3) the conditions prescribed in § 173.315(a), Note 17, are met.
Conversely, the continued use of a cargo tank motor vehicle is not permitted if prior to January 1,1981, the state had adopted, or had incorporated by reference, the HMR requirements into its own regulations. In this situation, the continued use of the cargo tank is permitted under the conditions prescribed in § 173.315(a), Note 17, only if the state's laws specifically permitted the use of a nonspecification cargo tank for transportation of a hazardous material in intrastate commerce.
Q2. May the nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle referred to in Q1 be used in interstate commerce or must the cargo tank be used in intrastate only; that is, within a single state only?
A2. The nonspecification cargo tank may be used in intrastate commerce only, as stated in paragraph 7 to § 173.315, Note 17.
Q3. Under the provisions for the transportation of liquefied petroleum gas prescribed in § 173.315(k), can a nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle be used in a state that had no specific state laws that allowed or addressed its use prior to January 1, 1981?
A3. Yes, see explanation in Al above.
Q4. May the nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle referred to in Q3 be used in interstate commerce or must the cargo tank be used in intrastate only; that is, within a single state only?
A4. See A2 above.
Q5. May a carrier who has operations in more than one state that allows the use of a nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle under the provisions in § 173.315(a), Note 17, or § 173.315(k), move periodically the cargo tank from state to state as long as it is used specifically for intrastate commerce after it is moved?
A5. No. Prior to January 1, 1981, certain states permitted the use of these nonspecification cargo tanks under the terms of a state permit only. Some states had stricter operating controls than others. The final rules were adopted on the basis that these cargo tanks when properly maintained could continue to operate exclusively within that same state until taken out of service.
Q6. Why were these intrastate commerce provisions adopted into the HMR?
A6. With the passage of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, states were encouraged to adopt the HMR to promote uniformity in safety regulations throughout the nation. As states began adopting the HMR it was brought to our attention that a number of cargo tanks not subject to the HMR had been constructed in conformance with certain consensus standards and used in intrastate commerce for many years. The situation intensified with the adoption of a rule in 1980 that extended authority over the intrastate shipment of hazardous substances by motor carrier and made the provisions of the HMR apply to the carriage of these substances. Anhydrous ammonia was one of the materials designated as a hazardous substance with a reportable quantity of 100 pounds. We adopted the provisions in § 173.315 (a), Note 17, and (k) to permit the continued use of these nonspecification cargo tanks for the transportation of anhydrous ammonia. (Docket HM-1 66K, 47 FR 7244; February 18, 1982) and liquefied petroleum gas (Docket HM1661, 47 FR 7242; February 18, 1982). The provisions pen-nit the continued use of these cargo tanks in intrastate commerce until they are taken out of service and replaced with new cargo tanks that meet DOT requirements. These regulatory actions were taken to provide economic relief to the agricultural community and to small business operators,
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention.
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
173.315 |
| 04-0005 |
05-11-2004 |
Cargo Tank, FRP, Interpretation |
180.407 |
May 11, 2004
Mr. Lee K. Robinson Reference No. 04-0005
Arbonite
3826 Old Easton Road
Doylestown, PA 18901
Dear Mr. Robinson:
This responds to your December 22, 2003, letter requesting clarification on inspection of non-DOT specification 407 and 412 cargo tanks constructed from glass fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP) under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask whether these cargo tanks are subject to the “L” lining inspection under § 180.407(f) and the internal visual inspectiont “I” under § 180.407(c).
Cargo tanks constructed from GFRP are authorized only by DOT exemption. These DOT exemptions, e.g., DOT E-11903 and DOT E-12516 enclosed, specifically waive Special Provisions B15 and B23 in the HMR. These cargo tanks do not have a lining and, therefore, are not subject to the lining inspection requirements of § 180.407(f). However, these cargo tanks are subject to the internal visual inspection requirements of § 180.407(e).
I hope this answers your inquiry.
Sincerely,
John A. Gale
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
Enclosures
180.407 |
| 15-0246 |
05-10-2016 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation |
180.407(h)(2) |
May 10, 2016
Mr. Roger Kirk
Petroleum Transport, Inc.
4967 Crooks Rd., Suite 201
Troy, MI 48098
Reference No. 15-0246
Dear Mr. Kirk:
This is in response to your December 21, 2015 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask for clarification of the correct test markings for a tank trailer hauling UN 1987, Alcohols, n.o.s., 3, II. You provide a Safety Data Sheet for the mixture, which contains 60-100 percent weight Ethyl Alcohol, 1-5 percent weight Natural Gasoline and 0.1-1 percent weight Benzene. You also state that the trailer is marked with K-EPA-27, but the Ohio Public Utilities Commission cited this as incorrect.
In accordance with 49 CFR 180.407(h)(2), cargo tanks used to transport petroleum distillate fuels that are equipped with vapor collection equipment may be leak tested in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Method 27 – Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using Pressure-Vacuum Test” as set forth in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. In a final rule under Docket No. RSPA–98–3554 (HM-213; April 18, 2003), the Research and Special Programs Administration, predecessor to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, clarified that the EPA 27 test method may be used only for petroleum fuel service. It is the opinion of this Office that the material you describe may be used in blending with gasoline but is not, on its own, a petroleum distillate fuel. As such, the tank trailer may not be leak tested using the EPA Method 27 and marked with K-EPA-27.
I hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact this office if you need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Duane A. Pfund
International Standards Coordinator
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.407(h)(2) |
| 16-0048 |
08-03-2016 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation |
180.407(h)(1) |
August 3, 2016
Ronald B. Swegheimer
Division Chief
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
180 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Ref. No. 16-0048
Dear Mr. Swegheimer:
This responds to your March 18, 2016 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the requalification and maintenance of cargo tanks. In your email, you describe a Specification DOT 407 cargo tank equipped with vapor recovery equipment that is transporting “UN3295, Hydrocarbons, liquid, n.o.s.” Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:
<strong>Q1. Are all specification cargo tanks equipped with vapor recovery equipment allowed to use the EPA Method 27 leak test?</strong>
A1. No. Only cargo tanks used to transport petroleum distillate fuels (defined in the test as a petroleum distillate or petroleum distillate/alcohol blend having a Reid vapor pressure of 27.6 kilopascals or greater which is used as a fuel for internal combustion engines) that are equipped with vapor collection equipment may be leak tested in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “Method 27—Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using Pressure-Vacuum Test,” as set forth in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
<strong>Q2. If a cargo tank with vapor collection equipment that has been tested in accordance with EPA Method 27 transports gasoline one time, is it authorized to carry other hazardous materials without being retested in accordance with § 180.407(h)(1)?</strong>
A2. No. The authorization to perform the leak test in accordance with EPA Method 27 is only for cargo tanks that are in dedicated service for the transportation of petroleum distillate fuel.
<strong>Q3. If a cargo tank is not operated in petroleum distillate fuel service but is equipped with vapor recovery equipment, is the vapor recovery equipment subject to the requirements in Part 180, Subpart E of the HMR?</strong>
A3. The qualification and maintenance requirements in Part 180, Subpart E of the HMR apply to all specification cargo tanks. To be considered an authorized specification packaging, all applicable requirements in Part 180, Subpart E must be met for the particular cargo tank in question. However, there are no specific qualification and maintenance requirements or retesting requirements specific to vapor collection equipment, as it is not included in any cargo tank specification.
I trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Dirk Der Kinderen
Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.407(h)(1) |
| 07-0169 |
10-30-2007 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation |
178.337-3(g) |
C. Allen Foster Ref. No.: 07-0169
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Suite 500
800 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Foster:
This responds to your July 31, 2007 letter concerning regulatory compliance issues associated with the attachment of mounting pads for internal baffle support clips on MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles manufactured by Trinity Industries, Inc. (Trinity). Specifically, you ask us to reconsider our May 2, 2006 interpretation (Ref. No. 06-0046) on this issue. That interpretation states that, in accordance with § 178.337-3(g)(3) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180), the welding of any appurtenance to the <u>inside or outside</u> of a cargo tank wall must be made by attachment of a mounting pad so that there will be no adverse effect upon the lading retention integrity of the cargo tank if any force less than that prescribed in § 178.337-3(b)(1) is applied from any direction.
We have reviewed our May 2, 2006 interpretation and the information provided in your letter. We continue to believe that our interpretation is consistent with the language and intent of the regulatory requirement set forth in § 177.337-3(g)(3). However, you assert this requirement is not needed to ensure the integrity of a cargo tank as Trinity has manufactured thousands of cargo tanks, constructed with the internal baffle support clips welded directly to the cargo tank shell without pads, without cracking of the shell material or cracking of welds resulting from attachment of the baffle support clips. Based on Trinity's experience, we plan to reassess the requirement in § 177.337-3(g)(3) as part of an upcoming cargo tank rulemaking.
Given the circumstances outlined in your letter, we have determined that Trinity cargo tanks constructed with internal baffle support clips welded directly to the inside surface of the cargo tank shell should be permitted to continue in operation, subject to provisions of a special permit issued in accordance with Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 107, while we complete our reassessment of the requirements in § 177.337-3(g). The special permit " termed a "manufacture, mark, and sale" special permit " would establish conditions under which the cargo tank motor vehicles could continue in service without replacing the existing baffle clips. Such a special permit could specify repair procedures to address stress cracking resulting from fatigue or repairs that require welding directly to the cargo tank wall and periodic inspection requirements. General information on submitting a special permit application is provided in 49 CFR 107.105. For additional information regarding the content of your special permit application, please contact Delmer Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, at (202) 366-4511.
If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Mazzullo
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
178.337-3(g) |
| 06-0046 |
05-02-2006 |
Appurtenances, Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Pads |
178.337-3(g) |
This is in response to your letter concerning requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) for specification MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles.
Requirements for the design, construction, and installation of attachments and appurtenances for MC 331 cargo tanks are set forth in §178.337-3(g). These requirements became effective September 1, 1995. For MC 331 cargo tanks manufactured after September 1, 1995, § 178.337-3(g) requires an attachment, appurtenance, structural support member, or accident protection device to conform to the following requirements:
<ol>
<li>Appurtenances and other accessories must be attached to structural members, the suspension sub-frame, accident protection structures, or external circumferential reinforcement devices, when practicable.</li>
<li>A lightweight appurtenance to the cargo tank wall such as a conduit clip, brake line clip, skirting structure, lampmounting bracket, or placard holder must be of a construction having lesser strength than the cargo tank wall materials and may not be more than 72 percent of the thickness of the material to which it is attached. The lightweight attachment may be secured directly to the cargo tank wall if the device is designed and installed so that, if damaged, it will not affect the lading retention integrity of the tank. A lightweight attachment must be secured to the cargo tank shell or head by a continuous weld to preclude formation of pockets that may become sites for corrosion. Attachments meeting the requirements of this paragraph are not authorized for cargo tanks constructed under part UHT in Section VIII Division 1 of the ASME Code.</li>
<li>Except as indicated above the welding of any appurtenance to the <span style="text-decoration: underline">inside or outside</span> of the cargo tank wall must be made by attachment of a mounting pad so that there will be no adverse effect upon the lading retention integrity of the cargo tank if any force less than the prescribe in § 178.337-3(b)(1) is applied from any direction. The thickness of the mounting pad may not be less than that of the shell wall or head wall to which it is attached, and not more than 1.5 times the shell or head thickness. However, a pad with a minimum of 0.25 inch may be used when the shell or head thickness is over 0.25 inch. If weep holes or tell-tale holes are used, the pad must be drilled or punched at the lowest before it is welded to the tank.</li>
</ol>
An MC 331 cargo tank manufactured after September 1, 1995, that does not conform to these requirements must be removed from service until appropriate repairs or modifications are made. For MC 331 cargo tanks manufactured prior to September 1, 1995, appurtenances and accessories must be attached to the tank in accordance with the specification in effect at the time of manufacture. An MC 331 cargo tank that does not conform to the specification in effect at the time it was manufactured must be removed from service until appropriate repairs or modifications are made. There are no provisions in the HMR for a non-conforming MC 331 cargo tank to remain in service until the next pressure test or re-chassis is done, regardless of its date of manufacture.
To perform repairs on MC 331 cargo tanks requiring welding to the cargo tank shell, a facility must hold a valid National Board Certificate of Authorization for use of the "R" stamp and be registered in accordance with 49 CFR Part 107. Any repair involving welding on the shell or head must be certified by a Registered Inspector. Additionally, if a repair results in a design change, the design must be approved by a Design Certifying Engineer, and a Registered Inspector must certify that the cargo tank has been repaired and tested in accordance with the applicable specification.
Section 180.413 specifies that repair work on an MC 331 cargo tank must be performed in accordance with the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) and the Compressed Gas Association's Technical Bulletin, TB-2. Since MC 331 cargo tanks are American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) coded vessels, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) requires full compliance with the ASME Code and NBIC except as modified by 49 CFR Parts 178 and 180 and includes but is not limited to provisions for inspections, inspectors and marking. The suitability of any repair affecting the structural integrity of the cargo tank must be determined by the testing prescribed in the applicable specification. See § 180.413.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance. |
| 08-0043 |
04-29-2008 |
Cargo Tank, Internal Inspection, Interpretation, Marking, Video Cameras |
180.405, 180.407 |
April 29, 2008
Mr. James Osterhaus
Deputy Director, Safety Division
Texas Railroad Commission
1701 N. Congress
Austin, TX 78711
Ref. No.: 08-0043
Dear Mr. Osterhaus:
This is in response to your February 19, 2008 e-mail requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to cargo tanks intended for use in liquefied petroleum gas service. Your scenario involves inspection and marking of MC330 and MC331 cargo tanks manufactured within the last five years. Your questions are paraphrased and answered below.
Q1: Is a newly manufactured MC330 or MC331 cargo tank required to be marked with a "P" as specified in § 180.415 to indicate that the cargo tank has been subjected to a pressure test?
A1: No. Section 180.415 specifies the marking requirements for a cargo tank successfully completing the periodic test and inspection requirements in § 180.407. The HMR do not require a new cargo tank, including MC 331, that is not due for its first requalification inspection or test as specified in § 180.407 to be marked in accordance with § 180.415. Please note that, although authorized for continued use, MC 330 cargo tanks are no longer authorized for manufacture. See § 180.405(c).
Q2: Is a newly manufactured MC 331 cargo tank required to be marked with an "I" as specified in § 180.415 to indicate that the cargo tank has been subjected to an internal visual inspection?
A2: No. See A1.
Q3: Must a person who conducts the 5 year internal visual inspection for MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks with manholes physically climb inside the cargo tank to perform the inspection?
A3: No. The HMR do not require a person who conducts internal visual inspections in accordance with § 180.407(e) to physically climb into the cargo tank. It is this Office's opinion that nothing required by § 180.407(e) would prohibit the use of a video camera to perform a cargo tank visual inspection provided all internal areas of the cargo tank can be viewed in a manner which provides details equivalent to that which would be expected if viewed directly by a person inside the tank. Therefore, except for tank liners which must be inspected in accordance with § 180.407(f), a video camera may be utilized to perform the internal visual inspection of a cargo tank as required by § 180.407(e).
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.405 180.407 |
| 01-0305 |
05-10-2001 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Pressure Test |
180.407, 180.407(g) |
Date: MAY 10, 2001 Reply to Attn of Gorsky, x69532 Ref. No. 01-01305
Subject: Pressure Testing of Cargo Tanks
From: Thomas G. Allan
Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
To: William A. Quade
Chief of Hazardous Materials Division
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
This responds to your request for an interpretation, bye-mail dated May 2, 2001, related to pressure testing Me 306 and DOT 406 specification cargo tanks under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask whether a manhole cover must be removed and replaced with a blank flange for the pressure test.
Your e-mail describes a manhole that includes a fill opening and pressure relief vent as one piece. Apparently, some manhole manufacturers are advising cargo tank operators to remove the manhole/fill opening/pressure relief vent component and replace it with a blank flange for the cargo tank's pressure test.
Section 180.407(g) requires all components of a cargo tank wall to be pressure tested. The cargo tank wall includes those parts of the cargo tank that make up the primary lading retention structure, including shell, bulkheads, and fittings, which, when closed during transportation, yield the minimum volume of the cargo tank assembly (see § 178.320(a». A manhole cover is part of the cargo tank wall. Under the pressure test procedure outlined in § 180.407(g), the manhole/fill opening/pressure relief component should be removed from the cargo tank so that the pressure relief vent can be bench tested (see § 180.407(g)(1)(ii)(A)). Since § 180.407(g)(I)(vii) requires the pressure test of the cargo tank to be conducted with all closures (except pressure relief devices) in place, the manhole/fill opening/pressure relief component should then be reinstalled and the pressure relief device disabled for the pressure test. You are correct that removing the manhole/fill opening/pressure relief component and replacing it with a blank flange for the pressure test is not consistent with the pressure test procedure in § 180.407(g).
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
180.407 |
| 12-0264 |
01-14-2013 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Pressure Test |
180.407(g), 178.347-5(b)(1) |
January 14, 2013
Mr. John F. Cannon
Vice President, Engineering
Walker Group Holdings
Transportation Tank Companies
A Unit of Wabash National
P.O. Box 670
Fond du Lac, WI 54936
Reference No. 12-0264
Dear Mr. Cannon:
This is in response to your e-mail requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR 171-180) applicable to the requirements for the test and inspection of specification cargo tanks. Specifically, you request that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) amend the test pressure entries in the § 180.407(g)(1)(iv) test pressure table by beginning the entries with the phrase, "The test pressure on the nameplate (specification plate)." You state that doing so would close a disconnect between Part 180 and the applicable packaging specification.
In the scenario you present in your letter, you address pressure retesting a DOT 407 cargo tank at 45psi. You state that the DOT 407 cargo tank has a maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of 25psi and a cargo tank test pressure of 45psi stamped on its nameplate in accordance with § 178.345-14(b)(1). You further state that this test pressure of greater than 1.5 times MAWP is allowed by § 178.347-5(b)(1), which reads:
"Using the hydrostatic test method, the test pressure must be at least 40 psig or 1.5 times tank MAWP, whichever is greater."
You state that this is where the disconnect lies and recommend the addition of the wording as presented above.
If you believe a rulemaking change (revision, addition, deletion) is warranted, we invite you to file a petition in accordance with §§ 106.95, 106.100 and 106.105, including all information needed to support your petition. Your request will be further evaluated for merit to address in an upcoming rulemaking. For regulations in 49 CFR Parts 171 through 180, submit the petition to: Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHH-10, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office should you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.407(g), 178.347-5(b)(1) |
| 98-0363 |
01-19-1999 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Pressure Test |
180.407 |
JAN 19, 1999
Mr. Clifford J. Harvison, Jr. Ref. No. 98-0363
President
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
2200 Mill Road
Alexandria, VA 22314
Dear Mr. Harvison:
This responds to your recent letter concerning certain cargo tank tests and inspections required under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-180; HMR). Specifically, you ask about the elements of a pressure test and the procedures that should be followed if more than one facility performs the inspections and testing.
Your interpretation is correct. The pressure test required by § 180.407(g) of the HMR is not considered complete until both the external and internal inspections, as well as the pressure test, have been completed. An operator may use more than one facility to perform the required inspections and testing. In that event, as you have advised your members, the pressure test marking required by § 180.415 is applied to the cargo tank only when all inspection and testing requirements are fulfilled. Further, the relevant documentation must indicate that different facilities performed the external and internal inspections and the pressure test. Until the inspection and testing requirements are completed, the specification plate on the cargo tank should be covered. We advise against removing the specification plate in this situation.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Allan
Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 11-0059 |
10-12-2011 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Upper Coupler |
180.407 |
October 12, 2011
Mr. Daniel G. Shelton
HazMat Resources Inc.
124 Rainbow Drive, # 2471
Livingston, TX 77399
Reference No.: 11-0059
Dear Mr. Shelton:
This responds to your letter regarding the requirement for the removal of the upper coupler assembly during various tests and inspections of cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMV) under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you describe two scenarios and ask several specific questions for each scenario. The questions regarding both non-insulated and insulated cargo tanks transporting a lading corrosive to the tank are paraphrased and answered as follows:
For non-insulated cargo tanks transporting a lading corrosive to the tank:
Q1: Is the upper coupler required to be removed to perform the external visual inspection?
A1: In accordance with § 180.407(d)(2)(ix), as part of the external visual inspection test for CTMVs transporting lading corrosive to the tank, an upper coupler must be removed from the CTMV and areas of the cargo tank covered by the upper coupler must be inspected for corroded and abraded areas, dents, distortions, defects in welds, and any other condition that might render the tank unsafe for transportation service. However, as stated in a previous letter of interpretation (Reference No.: 02-0290, see attached), an upper coupler may remain on the cargo tank under the following specific conditions:
1. The upper coupler must allow a complete external visual inspection of the area of the cargo tank that is directly above the upper coupler. The visual inspection must be as effective as performing an external visual inspection of this area if the turntable were to be removed.
2. The external visual inspection and pressure test must be conducted by directly viewing the tank; therefore, the use of a device that creates an image of the tank (i.e., mirrors, cameras, or fiber optics) is prohibited.
3. All major appurtenances and structural attachments on the cargo tank that can be inspected without dismantling the turntable assembly must be inspected for any corrosion or damage that might prevent safe operation (§ 180.407(d)(2)(viii)).
4. Areas covered by the turntable assembly must be inspected for corroded and abraded areas, dents, distortions, defects in welds, and any other condition that render the cargo tank unsafe for transportation service (§ 180.407(g)(1)(iii)).
Q2. Is the upper coupler required to be removed to perform the pressure test?
A2: The answer is yes, unless all the conditions and criteria in A1, 1 through 4 are met. The requirement to remove the upper coupler assembly as part of a pressure test for CTMVs was adopted into the HMR under final rule HM-183A on September 9, 1990 [55 FR 37041]. As specified in § 180.407(g)(1)(iii), except for cargo tanks carrying lading corrosive to the tank, as part of a pressure test for CTMVs, an upper coupler must be removed from the CTMV, and areas of the cargo tank covered by the upper coupler must be inspected for corroded and abraded areas, dents, distortions, defects in welds, and any other condition that might render the cargo tank unsafe for transportation. Although this requirement states "except for cargo tanks carrying material corrosive to the tank" it was not the intention of HM-183A to except these materials from removing the upper coupler during the pressure test. Instead, it was the intent to limit the requirement to remove the upper coupler for pressure testing to only CMTVs carrying material corrosive to the tank.
Q3: Is a "UC" marking, indicating the upper coupler has been inspected, required to be applied to the CTMV?
A3: The answer is no. Each cargo tank successfully completing the test and inspection requirements contained in § 180.407 must be marked as specified in § 180.415. There is no requirement in this section to mark a CTMV that has been successfully tested and inspected with "UC" marking.
For insulated cargo tanks transporting a lading corrosive to the tank:
Q4: Is the upper coupler required to be removed to perform the external visual inspection?
A4: The answer is no. In accordance with § 180.407(d)(2)(ix), as part of the external visual inspection test for CTMVs transporting lading corrosive to the tank, an upper coupler must be removed from the CTMV and areas of the cargo tank covered by the upper coupler must be inspected for corroded and abraded areas, dents, distortions, defects in welds, and any other condition that might render the tank unsafe for transportation service. However, there is no requirement to remove the insulation and jacketing covering the area of the cargo tank shell above the upper coupler. Therefore, if one did remove the upper coupler, finding any of the conditions identified in § 180.407(d)(2)(ix) would be impossible without removing the jacketing and insulation.
Q5: Is the jacketing and insulation above the upper coupler required to be removed so the shell of the cargo tank can be inspected?
A5: The answer is no. In accordance with § 180.407(d)(1), where insulation precludes a complete external visual inspection as required by paragraphs § 180.407(d)(2)-(6), the cargo tank also must be given an internal visual inspection as specified in
§ 180.407(e). If an internal visual inspection is precluded because the cargo tank is lined, coated, or designed so as to prevent access for internal inspection, the tank must be hydrostatically or pneumatically tested in accordance with § 180.407(g)(1)(iv).
Q6: Is the upper coupler required to be removed to perform the pressure test?
A6: The answer is no. In accordance with § 180.407(g)(1)(iii), except for cargo tanks carrying lading corrosive to the tank, areas covered by the upper coupler (fifth wheel) assembly must be inspected for corroded and abraded areas, dents, distortions, defects in welds, and any other condition that might render the tank unsafe for transportation service. The upper coupler (fifth wheel) assembly must be removed from the cargo tank for this inspection. However, since insulation and jacketing cover the area of the cargo tank above the upper coupler and there is no requirement to remove the insulation and jacketing, unless it is otherwise impossible to reach test pressure and maintain a condition of pressure equilibrium after the test pressure is reached or the vacuum integrity of the insulation space cannot be maintained, there are no requirements to remove the upper coupler to inspect areas of the cargo tank shell above the upper coupler that are not visible.
Q7: Is the jacketing and insulation above the upper coupler required to be removed so the shell of the cargo tank can be inspected?
A7: The answer is no. In accordance with § 180.407(g)(2), when pressure testing an insulated cargo tank, the insulation and jacketing need not be removed unless it is otherwise impossible to reach test pressure and maintain a condition of pressure equilibrium after test pressure is reached, or the vacuum integrity cannot be maintained in the insulation space.
I hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.407 |
| 02-0118 |
05-29-2002 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Wet Fluorescent |
180.407 |
May 29, 2002
Mr. Scoff R. Burnside Reference No. 02-0118
Special Projects Manager
CGRS
P.O. Box 1489
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mr. Burnside:
This is in response to your letter of April 9, 2002 and subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Sandra Webb of my staff concerning the testing and inspection requirements of specification cargo tanks in propane service under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-1 80). Specifically, you asked whether MC 331 cargo tanks constructed of quenched and tempered steel used for the transportation of propane must be internally inspected by the wet fluorescent magnetic particle method as specified for cargo tanks used for the transportation of anhydrous ammonia and liquefied petroleum gas.
As specified in § 180.407(g), all components of the cargo tank wall, as defined in § 178.320(a) must be pressure tested as prescribed by this paragraph. The inspection and test requirements in § 180.407(g) of the HMR consist of three parts: an external visual inspection, an internal visual inspection and a pressure test (hydrostatic test or pneumatic test). Section 180.407(g)(3) provides the internal visual requirements for cargo tanks constructed to MC 331 specification used for the transportation of liquefied petroleum gas (LP-gas). You should be aware that propane is a liquefied petroleum gas. Thus, the internal inspection requirement by the wet fluorescent magnetic particle method as prescribed in 180.407(g)(3) is required to be performed in conjunction with the performance of the pressure test prescribed in this section.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Delmer Billings
Chief Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 08-0125 |
08-21-2008 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Wet Fluorescent |
107.502, 180.407(g)(3), 180.417 |
August 21, 2008
Mr. Daniel G. Shelton
Vice President
HazMat Resources, Inc.
10104 Creedmoor Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Ref. No. 08-0125
Dear Mr. Shelton:
This is in response to your May 3, 2008 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to registration and recordkeeping requirements pertaining to Department of Transportation (DOT) specification cargo tanks.
Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:
<strong>Q1. Do the registration requirements specified in Part 107, Subpart F of the HMR apply to a company that performs a Wet Fluorescent Magnetic Particle Examination (WFMPE) on MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks?</strong>
A1. Yes. In accordance with § 107.502, no person may engage in the manufacture, assembly, certification, inspection or repair of a cargo tank or cargo tank motor vehicle manufactured under the terms of a DOT specification or a special permit unless the person is registered with the Department in accordance with the provisions of Subpart F. A person employed as an inspector or design certifying engineer is considered to be registered if the person's employer is registered.
<strong>Q2. Section V of the ASME Code requires a written report when a WFMPE is performed. Is a written report required as part of the pressure test when a WFMPE is performed, or is it allowable to indicate on the pressure test report required by § 180.417 that a WFMPE was completed?</strong>
A2. In accordance with Section V of the ASME Code, a written report is required when a WFMPE is performed. In addition, each person performing a test or inspection specified in § 180.407 must prepare a written report in accordance with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements specified in § 180.417.
<strong>Q3. Section V of the ASME Code requires specific qualification and training requirements and documentation for persons performing a WFMPE. Are these documents required to be maintained and produced in accordance with the requirements of Section V of the ASME Code?</strong>
A3. Yes.
<strong>Q4. What DOT regulations require the maintenance of the additional documentation referenced in Q3?</strong>
A4. As required in § 180.407(g)(3), the wet fluorescent magnetic particle inspection must be in accordance with Section V of the ASME Code and CGA Technical Bulletin TB-2.
<strong>Q5. CGA Technical Bulletin TB-2, Section 5.6 states: "Determine the proper documentation has been completed, including marking of the tank. Refer to 49 CFR 180.415 and 180.417." Is this documentation required by the ASME Code or the HMR?</strong>
A5. The HMR incorporate Section V of the ASME Code by reference. Thus, when a WFMPE is performed, the HMR require a written report in accordance with Section V. In addition, the requirements of test and marking requirements specified in § 180.415 and the reporting and record retention requirements specified in § 180.417 must also be met.
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Susan Gorsky,
Acting Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
107.502, 180.407(g)(3), 180.417 |
| 07-0219 |
03-05-2008 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Wet Fluorescent |
180.407(g)(3) |
March 5, 2008
Mr. Albert Calkin
Transportation Safety Consultant
Innovative Safety Solutions, Inc.
3310 Baldy Drive
Helena, MT 59602-9568
Ref. No.: 07-0219
Dear Mr. Calkin:
This responds to your November 2, 2007 letter requesting clarification on testing MC 330 or MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask for interpretation of the requirement for conducting wet fluorescent magnetic particle examination in conjunction with the performance of the pressure test of MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles as specified in §180.407(g)(3) of the HMR.
Section 173.315, Note 15 states that MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks constructed of other than quenched and tempered steel (NGT) are authorized for all grades of liquefied petroleum gases (LPG). Only grades of LPG determined to be "noncorrosive" are authorized in Specification MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks constructed of quenched and tempered steel (QT). "Noncorrosive" means the corrosiveness of the gas does not exceed the limitations for classification 1 of the ASTM Copper Strip Classifications when tested in accordance with ASTM D 1838, "Copper Strip Corrosion by Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases".
Each MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank transporting LPG, constructed of quenched and tempered steel or constructed of other than quenched and tempered steel without postweld heat treatment, must be internally inspected by the wet fluorescent magnetic particle method immediately prior to and in conjunction with the performance of the pressure test prescribed in §180.407(g)(3).
I hope this answers your inquiry.
Sincerely,
John A. Gale
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407(g)(3) |
| 05-0233 |
01-31-2006 |
49 CFR, Interpretation, Placarding |
172.519 |
Dear Mr. Shimer:
This is in response to your September 19, 2005, letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 100-185). Specifically, you ask for clarification on the proper placement of placards on propane bobtails and gasoline/fuel oil delivery straight trucks.
Section 172.516(a) states that each placard on a motor vehicle and each placard on a rail car must be clearly visible from the direction it faces, except from the direction of another transport vehicle or rail car to which the motor vehicle or rail car is coupled. Therefore, a propane bobtail is required to be placarded on each side and each end. However, if the required placard on the front of the tank is not visible from the direction it faces, the required placard must be displayed in a visible location on the front of the motor vehicle. In the case of gasoline fuel oil delivery straight trucks, the required placard must be displayed on each side and each end. However, the placard on the tank is not required to be visible from the direction it faces when coupled to another transport vehicle, rail car, or motor vehicle.
I hope this satisfies your inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Betts
Senior Transportation Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards |
| 06-0235 |
16-11-2006 |
49 CFR, Interpretation, Marking |
172.328 |
Mr. James T. Osterhaus Reference No. 06-0235
LPG Section Manager, Safety Division
Railroad Commission of Texas
1701 North Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78711-2967
Dear Mr. Osterhaus:
This responds to your letter dated October 18, 2006, regarding the NON-ODORIZED or
NOT-ODORIZED marking on packagings containing unodorized Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (LPG) under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).
Under the HMR, a NON-ODORIZED or NOT-ODORIZED marking is required to be displayed on certain cylinders, portable tanks, cargo tanks, and tank cars and multi-unit tank car tanks containing LPG that is shipped unodorized in transportation in commerce (see § 172.301, 172.326, 172.328, and 172.330, respectively).
You are correct that as of October 1, 2006, the NON-ODORIZED or NOT-ODORIZED marking may appear on a tank car or multi-unit tank car tank used for both unodorized and odorized LPG, as specified in § 172.330. Although the requirements for marking a cargo tank do not specify that the marking may be displayed on a cargo tank used for both unodorized and odorized LPG, such display is not prohibited in accordance with the prohibited marking in § 172.303. Thus, the NON-ODORIZED or NOT-ODORIZED marking may appear on a cargo tank used for both unodorized and odorized LPG.
As a result of interest from the regulated community in prescribing requirements for display of the NON-ODORIZED or NOT-ODORIZED marking on a cargo tank used for both unodorized and odorized LPG, we intend to revisit this issue in a future rulemaking in order to specify similar requirements currently allowed for tank cars and multi-unit tank car tanks for certain cylinders, cargo tanks, and portable tanks.
I hope this satisfies you inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
John A. Gale
Chief, Regulations Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
172.303, 172.328 |
| 07-0212 |
27-02-2008 |
49 CFR, Interpretation |
172.328(b)(2), 172.203 |
Capt. Bruce Bugg
Motor Carrier Compliance Division
Georgia Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 1456
Atlanta, GA 30371
Ref. No. 07-0212
Dear Capt. Bugg:
This responds to your request for clarification of the requirements pertaining to the use of trade names and common names under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You state that a cargo tank is marked with the trade name "Emixal" followed by "Refrigerated gas" and that the shipping papers contain the shipping description, "Gas, refrigerated liquid, n.o.s., (Argon, Oxygen), 2.2, UN3158" without the trade name in association with the basic description. Specifically, you ask whether the use of the trade name as a common name and used in this manner is acceptable under § 172.328(b)(2).
You submitted for our review copies of the shipping paper, materials safety data sheet and a photograph of the cargo tank marking. The photograph shows a cargo tank marked as follows:
EMIXAL
REFRIGERATED LIQUID
Section 172.328(b)(2) provides for a common name to be marked in place of the proper shipping name on a cargo tank. Neither the description "Refrigerated Liquid" nor "Emixal, Refrigerated Liquid" is an acceptable common name for the subject gas mixture and, therefore, does not satisfy the marking requirement in § 172.328(b)(2). Emixal appears to be a trade name. Under § 172.304(a)(4), non-required markings, such as a trade name, would be acceptable if displayed away from the required hazard markings in a manner that does not substantially reduce its effectiveness.
When a common name is used to meet the marking requirements for a cargo tank, that action does not affect the shipping paper requirements. The assigned basic shipping description "Gas,
refrigerated liquid, n.o.s., (Argon, Oxygen), 2.2 UN3158" is correct. The notation of a common name on the shipping papers would be considered additional information and may be included on the shipping paper in accordance with § 172.203.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
172.328(b)(2), 172.203 |
| 09-0039 |
17-03-2009 |
49 CFR, Interpretation |
172.519 |
Mr. Danny Shelton
Vice President, Business Development
HazMat Resources, Inc.
10104 Creedmoor Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Ref. No. 09-0039
Dear Mr. Shelton:
This is in response to your letter dated February 18, 2009, requesting clarification of § 172.504 and 172.516 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask several questions regarding the display of the proper shipping name and the term "Inhalation Hazard" on a cargo tank motor vehicle.
Q1. Is it acceptable to display the proper shipping name on a panel permanently attached to the structure of the cargo tank provided the proper shipping name is clearly visible from any direction?
A1. As required by § 172.328, each cargo tank motor vehicle transporting Class 2 material must be marked on each side an each end with the proper shipping name specified for the gas in the hazardous materials table or an appropriate common name for the material. A panel permanently attached to the motor vehicle may be used to comply with this requirement.
Q2. Is it acceptable to display "Inhalation Hazard" on a panel permanently attached to the structure of the cargo tank that is visible from any direction?
A2. As required by § 172.313, the words "Inhalation Hazard" must be marked on two opposing sides of a bulk packaging. A panel permanently attached to the motor vehicle may be used to comply with this requirement.
Q3. Does the phrase "visible from the direction it faces" as used in § 172.516 mean the placard must be at eye level or can the placard be placed in another location such as the top head of the cargo tank or another location on the cargo tank provided the placard is visible from the direction it faces?
A3. The phrase "visible from the direction it faces" as it is used in this case does not imply the placard must be mounted in any specific position on the cargo tank. However, a placard must be located clear of appurtenances and devices such as ladders or pipes; placed so that dirt and water is not directed to it from the wheels of the transport vehicle; be located away from any markings that could substantially reduce its effectiveness; maintained so that its legibility, color, and visibility are not substantially reduced because of damage, deterioration, or obscurement; and otherwise conform to the detailed visibility requirements established in § 172.516.
I hope this answers your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Betts
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
172.516, 172.328, 172.313 |
| 13-0128 |
06-09-2013 |
49 CFR, Interpretation |
172.328(a)(3) |
September 9, 2013
Mr. Guy Dalton
Head of Transport Compliance Safety
Linde Gas North America LLC
130 Briar Hill
Painesville, Ohio 44077
Ref. No.: 13-0128
Dear Mr. Dalton:
This responds to your June 7, 2013 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the marking of cargo tanks permanently affixed inside delivery trucks. In your letter you state that your company, Linde Gas North America LLC (Linde), transports medical grade oxygen (refrigerated liquid) in cargo tanks inside the cargo compartments of home healthcare delivery vehicles. You state that the cargo tanks are not visible from the exterior of the vehicle, and that the cargo tanks are permanently affixed in the front of the cargo box and are accessed by a side door. You state that the controls for discharge of the product as well as all other required gauges, valves, and pressure relief devices are visible when opening the side door. Further, you state that the opposing sides and ends of the cargo tanks cannot be accessed once installed permanently in the vehicles. Your questions are paraphrased and answered below.
Q1: Where must the required identification (ID) number markings be affixed to a cargo tank containing a gas that is permanently installed within the enclosed cargo body of a transport vehicle?
A1: In accordance with § 172.328(a)(3), for a cargo tank transported on or in a transport vehicle, if the ID number marking on the cargo tank would not normally be visible during transportation, the transport vehicle must be marked on each side and each end with the identification number specified for the material in the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT; § 172.101).
However, an exception is provided by § 172.328(a)(3)(ii) in that when a cargo tank is permanently installed within an enclosed cargo body of a transport vehicle, the ID number marking need only be displayed on each side and end of a cargo tank that is visible when the cargo tank is accessed. In your scenario, you may take advantage of this exception and mark the required ID number on each side and end of the cargo tank that is visible when the cargo tank is accessed.
Q2: Where must the required proper shipping name or common name marking be affixed to a cargo tank containing a gas that is permanently installed within the enclosed cargo body of a transport vehicle?
A2: In accordance with § 172.328(b), except for certain nurse tanks which must be marked as prescribed in § 173.315(m), each cargo tank transporting a Class 2 (gas) material must be marked, in lettering no less than 50 mm (2.0 inches), on each side and each end with: (1) the proper shipping name specified for the gas in the HMT; or (2) an appropriate common name for the material (e.g., “Refrigerant Gas”).
Q3: In our scenario, does the authorization for marking the ID number only on the surface of the cargo tank that is normally accessed applicable to the proper shipping name marking requirement?
A3: The answer is no, please see A2.
Q4: In our scenario, if the answer to Q3 is no, what would be the appropriate regulatory requirements?
A4: Please see A2.
I trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
172.328, 173.315 |
| 03-0059 |
10-04-2003 |
49 CFR, Interpretation |
173.320 |
Apr 10, 2003
Mr. Jason E. Burnett Reference No. 03-0059
Alta Genetics, Inc.
N8350 High Road
Watertown, WI 53094
Dear Mr. Burnett:
This is in response to your letter and telephone conversation with a member of my staff concerning the exception for cryogenic liquids under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You state that your company transports nitrogen, refrigerated liquid in cylinders and either 119, 150 or 190-gallon portable tanks that are equipped with pressure relief devices so the pressure will not exceed 22 psig. Specifically, you ask if you can take advantage of the exception in § 173.320 and if you are subject to the placarding requirements. You also ask what the licensing requirements are for the drivers of these vehicles.
Section 173.320 excepts highway and rail shipments of cryogenic liquids from certain requirements in the HMR if the packagings are Dewar flasks, insulated cylinders, insulated portable tanks, insulated cargo tanks, or insulated tank cars, and are designed and constructed so that the pressure in the packaging will not exceed 23.5 psig under ambient temperature conditions during transportation. If your packagings of nitrogen, refrigerated liquid meet these conditions, they qualify for the exception in § 173.320 and are not subject to placarding requirements.
For a response to your question regarding the licensing requirements for drivers under 49 CFR
Parts 350-399, please contact the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. You may direct
your correspondence to-
Mr. Dan Hartman
State Programs Division Chief, MC-ESS
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W
Washington, DC 20591
I hope this satisfies your request.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
173.320 |
| 15-0224 |
11-01-2016 |
49 CFR, Interpretation |
172.516 |
January 13, 2016
Ms. Shannon Schick
Bulk Hazardous Materials Manager
Schneider National Bulk Carriers
1555 Glory Road
Green Bay, WI 54304
Ref. No.: 15-0224
Dear Ms. Schick
This responds to your letter dated November 17, 2015, requesting clarification on whether affixing placards to a motor vehicle with tape satisfies the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). In your letter you enclose a picture and describe a method of affixing placards by placing duct tape along the outer borders of a placard in which the tape covers only the border of the placard and does not obscure any part of the surface other than the borders.
The method described in your email and the picture is an acceptable method of affixing a placard provided the placard is securely attached or affixed (see § 172.516(c)(1)). Also, the HMR require a placard to be affixed to a background of contrasting color or have a dotted or solid line outer border which contrasts with the background color (see § 172.516(c)(7)). The dotted line border is not part of the placard specification. However, a dotted or solid line outer border may be used when needed to indicate the full size of a placard that is part of a larger format or is on a background of a non-contrasting color (see 172.519(b)(2)).
I hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact the Standards and Rulemaking Division at (202) 366-8553.
Sincerely,
Duane A. Pfund
International Standards Coordinator
Standards and Rulemaking Division
172.516(c)(1), 172.516(c)(7), 172.519(b)(2) |
| 14-0178 |
26-06-2015 |
49 CFR, Interpretation |
172.336 |
June 26, 2015
First Sergeant Dean Dill
South Carolina State Transport Police
10311 Wilson Boulevard
Blythewood, SC 29016
Reference No. 14-0178
Dear First Sergeant Dill:
This is in response to your recent e-mail and telephone conversations with a member of my staff requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the marking requirements for multi-compartment cargo tanks containing petroleum distillate fuels. You state you encountered a four-compartment cargo tank with all of its compartments filled with " NA 1993, Diesel fuel, 3, PG III" that was marked with the identification number for "UN 1203, Gasoline, 3, PG II." You ask if this marking is permitted.
The answer is no. The regulatory text in former § 172.336(c)(6), currently listed as the fifth item in the table under § 172.336(c) (see 78 FR 65454), permits a compartmented cargo tank loaded with more than one liquid petroleum distillate fuel to display only the identification number of the fuel with the lowest flash point being transported. In your example, all of the compartments in the cargo tank were loaded with only one petroleum distillate fuel. Therefore, it must be marked with the " NA 1993" identification number.
You also state, according to the driver of the cargo tank, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) stated in its Reference No. 00-0208 clarification letter that marking the vehicle with " UN 1203" is permitted when all of its compartments contain " NA 1993" diesel fuel under former § 172.336(c)(6). You ask if the driver’s understanding of this letter is correct. The answer is no. The clarification letter PHMSA issued under Reference No. 00-0208 applies to a marking exception for the display of an identification number on a multi-unit cargo tank containing different as opposed to containing the same liquid petroleum distillate fuels in all of its tanks. Therefore, a multi-unit cargo tank that contains the same material, e.g., " UN 1993," in each compartment must be marked with the identification number " 1993."
I hope this information satisfies your request.
Sincerely,
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
172.336(c)(6), 172.336(c) |
| 09-0203 |
17-12-2009 |
49 CFR, Interpretation |
107.504(f), 107.502 |
December 17, 2009
Mr. Don Lampshire
President, Gas Service and Supply
3396 Swan Lake Road
Bossier City, LA 71111
Reference No. 09-0203
Dear Mr. Lampshire:
This is in response to your August 31, 2009 e-mail concerning cargo tank (CT) registration numbers issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Specifically, you ask if the number is intended to indicate an approval or endorsement from DOT that the recipient of the number can perform the tasks required for cargo tanks that are prescribed in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).
As specified in 49 CFR 107.504(f), issuance of a DOT CT registration number is not an approval or endorsement by the Department of the qualifications of any person to perform cargo tank manufacture, assembly, certification, inspection, or repair specified functions. A person registered in compliance with § 107.503 who meets the knowledge and ability requirements for an Authorized Inspector, Design Certifying Engineer, or Registered Inspector as these terms are defined in § 171.8 of the HMR is authorized to perform the designated functions. Persons who are properly trained and holds a CT registration number but not an ASME U or National Board R stamp may perform inspections, tests, and other work involving changes to motor vehicle equipment such as lights, power train components, steering and brake systems, etc. They are not authorized to perform work affecting the cargo tank wall or its structural integrity or lading retention capability.
In accordance with § 107.502, no person may engage in the manufacture, assembly, certification, inspection, or repair of a cargo tank or cargo tank motor vehicle manufactured under the terms of a DOT specification or a special permit unless the person is registered with DOT in accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR Part 107, Subpart F. A person employed as a registered inspector or design certifying engineer is considered to be registered if his or her employer is registered. The CT program is managed and enforced by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Section 180.403 defines "repair" to mean welding on a cargo tank wall - the primary lading retention structure - done to return the cargo tank or cargo tank motor vehicle to its original design and construction standard. Any person undertaking repairs on DOT specification cargo tanks must: (1) hold a valid ASME Certification of Authorization for use of the "U" stamp, or a valid National Board Certification for the use of the "R" stamp, and (2) be registered in accordance with 49 CFR Part 107, Subpart F.
You state you have knowledge that some companies in receipt of a CT registration number and no other form of certification are representing themselves as being qualified to perform tests and repairs on DOT specification MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks. As stated above, FMCSA is responsible for ensuring the compliance of "cargo tank facilities," which includes cargo tank manufacturers, owners, and inspectors, as well as enforcement matters concerning cargo tanks and individuals under FMCSA regulations and the HMR. We are forwarding your letter for handling to Mr. James O. Simmons, Chief, Hazardous Materials Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Routing Symbol MC-ECH, Washington, DC, 20590, (202) 493-0496.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
107.504(f), 107.502 |
| 12-0194 |
18-01-2013 |
49 CFR, Interpretation |
180.413 |
January 16, 2013
Mr. Randolph Martin
DuPont Company
4417 Lancaster Pike
BMP22/2222
Wilmington, DE 19805
Ref. No. 12-0194
Dear Mr. Martin:
This responds to your August 31, 2012 e-mail requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to cargo tanks. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:
Q1. What are the certification, education, or experience requirements, if any, for an individual who merely replaces a relief valve on a Department of Transportation (DOT) specification cargo tank that was rebuilt, tested, and calibrated by someone else?
A1. None are prescribed. Section 180.407(a)(3) indicates that any person who witnesses or performs a test or inspection specified in § 180.407 must meet the minimum qualifications prescribed in § 180.409, which include registration with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in accordance with Part 107, Subpart F, of the HMR. Additionally, a hazmat employee who repairs, modifies, reconditions, or tests packagings, as qualified for use in the transportation of hazardous materials, and who does not perform any other function subject to the requirements of the HMR, is subject to the General Awareness/Familiarization, Function-Specific, and Security Awareness training requirements prescribed in § 172.704.
Q2. Once a relief valve is replaced, § 180.413(c)(1) requires that the valve be tested for leaks in accordance with § 180.407(h)(1). Is the leakage test prescribed in § 180.407(h)(1) the only method authorized to satisfy this requirement?
A2. The answer is yes. The leakage test prescribed in § 180.407(h)(1) is the only leakage test method that may be used to satisfy § 180.413(c)(1).
Q3. If alternate leakage test methods are authorized to satisfy § 180.413(c)(1), where are they defined, and are they prescribed at the discretion of the cargo tank owner?
A3. See A2 above.
I trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.407, 180.409, 180.413 |
| 14-0082 |
23-07-2014 |
49 CFR, Interpretation |
180.409 |
July 23, 2014
Mr. Kerry M. Fitzgerald
Compliance Manager
Renaldo Sales & Service, Inc.
1770 Mile Strip Road
North Collins, NY 14111
Ref. No. 14-0082
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
This responds to your letter dated April 10, 2014 requesting clarification of the minimum qualification requirements for cargo tank inspectors under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask if an employee, who is trained to perform all aspects of an internal visual inspection, but is not a Registered Inspector, may perform the internal visual inspection of an MC331 cargo tank under the supervision of a Registered Inspector.
The answer is no. Section 180.409 sets forth the minimum qualifications for cargo tank inspectors and testers. In accordance with § 180.409(d), external and internal visual inspections must be accomplished by a Registered Inspector. Section 180.409(d) does authorize an employee of a motor carrier or a cargo tank owner who is not a Registered Inspector to perform the hydrostatic or pneumatic pressure test required by
§§ 180.407(g)(1)(viii) and 180.407(g)(1)(ix), provided that: (1) The employee is familiar with the cargo tank and is trained and experienced in the use of the inspection and testing equipment used; (2) The employer submits certification that such employee meets the qualification requirements to the Associate Administrator, Attn: (PHH-32), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, East Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; and (3) The employer retains a copy of the tester's qualifications with the documents required by §180.417(b).
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Robert Benedict
Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.409, 180.409(d), 180.407(g)(1)(viii), 180.407(g)(1)(ix), 180.417(b) |
| 13-0216 |
04-18-2014 |
|
|
|
| 04-0067 |
03-30-2004 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Thickness Test |
180.407 |
Mar 30, 2004
Ms. Connie Sauer Reference No. 04-0067
Sauer Express, Inc.
3202 Renwood Blvd., #203
Louisville, KY 40214
Dear Ms. Sauer:
This is in response to your March 19, 2004 letter requesting clarification regarding cargo tank inspections and tests required under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask about testing and marking requirements for unlined cargo tanks that are tested and marked in accordance with § 180.407(i). In your letter, you state that a Michigan State Patrol Officer issued a violation to your company for failing to perform the required periodic thickness test on your cargo tank.
Section 180.407(i) establishes thickness testing requirements for unlined cargo tanks. Generally, the shell and head thickness of all unlined cargo tanks used for the transportation of materials corrosive to the tank must be measured at least once every 2 years. Although your tank was initially tested and marked in accordance with § 180.407(i), there is no requirement to periodically perform this test when no materials corrosive to the tank are being transported. Additionally, the HMR do not require that thickness testing markings that are no longer applicable be covered during transportation. However, we recommend that to prevent future frustration of your shipments that you cover the thickness marking, when these markings are not applicable.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell, Chief
Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 01-0230 |
09-21-2001 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Marking, Test and Inspection |
180.407 |
September 21, 2001
Mr. Clifford Rawn Reference No: 01-0230
Ventura-Lesbro
2418 E 23rd Street
Long Beach, California 90810
Dear Mr. Rawn:
This responds to your letter of August 28, 2001, requesting clarification o f the testing requirements for cargo tanks under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You provide an example where a cargo tank had a thickness test (due every 2 years) performed on 8/1/99 and the cargo tank was marked 8/99. You ask whether the cargo tank must be retested by August 1, 2001 or if it may be tested anytime within the month of August, 2001.
It is acceptable to test a cargo tank within the month that the test is due (the month that is marked on the cargo tank). In your example, the cargo tank may be retested anytime within the month of August, 2001,
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Delmer F. Billings
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 98-0604 |
10-05-1998 |
Cargo Tank, Interpretation, Leakage Test |
180.407 |
OCT 5, 1998
Mr. W.H. Butterbaugh, CAE Ref. No. 88-0022
Director, Regulatory Affairs
National Propane Gas Association
Suite 1004
1101 17th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Butterbaugh:
This is in response to your letter requesting clarification of the annual leakage test requirements specified in 49 CFR Part 180.407(c). Your questions are paraphrased and answered below:
Q1. Is the purpose of the leakage test to determine whether there is a release of lading to the atmosphere?
A1. The purpose of the leakage test is to determine whether a cargo tank, including its piping, can retain the lading, as proved by its ability to maintain the test pressure. The use of leak detector solutions is considered an efficient means for detecting where a leak exists in a cargo tank that fails to maintain the test pressure.
Q2. Must we test individual valves in the piping system during the leakage test?
A2. In order to satisfy requirements of § 180.407(h)(I), the leakage test must include not only the cargo tank itself, but also "product piping with all valves and accessories in place and operative". On most propane cargo tank motor vehicles (bobtails) this would include the internal self-closing stop valve, if used instead of an excess flow valve, all other valves including excess flow valves, pumps, meters, swivel joints, hose, filling connector, and piping, including any "flexible" sections and it would include the vapor transfer piping system, if installed. Because cargo tanks in liquefied petroleum gas service may be leakage tested at 60 psig, well below 80 percent of the tank's design pressure, pressure relief valves also must be leakage tested. The intent is to prove the leakage integrity of the cargo tank wall and the entire piping system. Valves fitted with the by-pass feature recognized in § 178.337-11(a)(1)(vi), of course, could not pass a closed-valve test were this type of test required.
As with other requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations, these tests and inspections are considered to be the minimum. More rigid test conditions and/or more frequent testing might be called for under some conditions, for example, if an owner suspected that the internal stop valve was not seating properly.
I apologize for the delay in preparing this response and hope that it has not caused you any inconvenience. If you need further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Allan
Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.407 |
| 11-0190 |
11-15-2011 |
49 CFR, Interpretation, Marking |
180.407, 180.145, 180.415(b)(2) |
November 15, 2011
Mr. Douglas R. Carothers
Manager EH&S Compliance
Action Resources
40 County Road 517
Hanceville, AL 35077
Ref. No.: 11-0190
Dear Mr. Carothers:
This responds to your August 5, 2011 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171"180) applicable to cargo tank test and inspection markings.
In your letter, you state that your company, Action Resources, regularly transports hazardous materials in appropriately-filled DOT 407 cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMV"s). You state that each of your cargo tanks is successfully tested and inspected in accordance with the HMR, and marked with the required markings as specified in §§ 180.407 and 180.415. You also state that recently, two of your CTMV"s have been cited by state enforcement officers for violating § 180.415(b)(2), which requires that each cargo tank successfully complete the test and inspection requirements contained in § 180.407 and be marked "in letters and numbers at least 32 mm (1.25 inches) high, near the specification plate or anywhere on the front head." Further, you provide multiple photographs of a sampling of your DOT 407 cargo tanks, indicating the locations of their specification plates and the test and inspection markings. You ask whether the placement of the inspection date markings on the drivers" side of the foremost third portion of the cargo tank, is consistent with the HMR.
For the scenario described in your letter and supported by the photographs, the answer is yes. The term "near" has a subjective meaning and is not defined in the HMR; and in this specific instance, would be consistent with the intent of the HMR. The test and inspection date markings are located on the same side of the cargo tank as the specification plates, and located on the same half of that left side. The markings, in conjunction with the specification plates, are easily accessible and visible to someone standing at the foremost third portion of the left side of the tank, fulfilling the intent of § 180.415(b)(2).
I hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
180.407, 180.145 |
| 12-0226 |
11-20-2012 |
49 CFR, Interpretation, Test Reports |
180.417 |
Mr. Jerry Mahl
Groendyke Transport, Inc.
2510 Rock Island Blvd.
Enid, OK 73701
Ref. No. 12-0226
Dear Mr. Mahl:
This responds to your October 1, 2012 email requesting clarification of the recordkeeping requirements for cargo tank inspections and testing under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you request clarification whether the reports specified in §180.417(b) on the testing and inspection of a cargo tank under §180.407 may be kept in electronic format.
The answer is yes. Unless specifically prohibited in the HMR, electronic methods of recordkeeping are authorized; with the general understanding that a record must be in such a format that it can be made available to a DOT representative upon request. Thus, in accordance with §180.417(b)(3), so long as the owner and the motor carrier, if not the owner, each retain a copy of the test and inspection report until the next test or inspection of the same type is successfully completed, the copy may be in electronic format.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Robert Benedict
Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division |
| 00-0208 |
10-16-2000 |
49 CFR, Interpretation, Marking |
172.336 (c) (5) |
Dear Mr. Rossbach:
This is in response to your letter dated July 20, 2000, regarding the identification number for gasoline, "1203", remaining on a cargo tank hauling diesel fuel, "1993", as permitted by the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).
Your understanding is that the marking exception for display of an identification number on a cargo tank containing different liquid petroleum distillate fuels only applies to the <span style="text-decoration: underline">simultaneous</span> shipment of more than one "different" fuel, and does not apply to a <span style="text-decoration: underline">subsequent</span> shipment. You believe this practice is confusing and potentially troublesome in an emergency, and questioned whether the exception allows this practice. You also requested that this issue be raised in future rulemaking and this letter be accepted as a petition for rulemaking.
Your understanding is incorrect. The exception provided by 172.336(c)(5) eliminates the requirement to change the identification number markings on a cargo tank transporting different liquid petroleum distillate fuels if the identification number is displayed for the liquid petroleum distillate fuel having the lowest flashpoint. Therefore, if a cargo tank containing gasoline is marked with the identification number "1203", it may remain so marked on a subsequent trip when the cargo tank contains diesel fuel.
The DOT Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) is developed in cooperation with Canadian and Mexican officials, industry representatives, and emergency responders. It is distributed by the Department to the emergency response community to assist responders in making initial decisions upon arriving at the scene of a transportation incident involving hazardous materials. First responders are trained in the use of this guidebook to identify the material through the identification number on a placard, orange panel, or on a shipping document or package.
The most important section of the guidebook is where the safety and mitigation recommendation (i.e. guide page) are provided. Each guide is designed to cover a group of materials. The action taken as recommended by guide page "128" is the same for both "gasoline" and "diesel fuel", and for other materials which possess similar chemical and toxicological characteristics. If additional specific information about any material in question is needed, first responders may immediately contact the shipper using the emergency response telephone number provided on the shipping document, which is required under subpart G of part 172 of the HMR.
In a rulemaking issued in 1980 [45 FR 34560], a variety of exceptions were addressed for display of identification number markings, including, under certain circumstances, display of the identification number on cargo tanks carrying distillate fuels, such as gasoline and fuel oil. Industry and emergency responders provided input on this exception. Based on this input, RSPA determined that this exception accomplishes the basic intent of identifying the materials adequately for emergency response and, at the same time, certain compliance and economic burdens are relieved and possible confusion avoided. Thus, we do not agree that greater efforts are needlessly made and time lost in trying to reconcile the actual contents with conflicting identification number marking.
I hope this satisfies your inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Mazzullo
Director, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards |
| 01-0082R |
05-24-2006 |
49 CFR, Interpretation, Marking |
172.336 |
May 24, 2006
Mr. Michael Ritchie
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Boulevard
Mail Stop 460, Room 121
St. Paul, MN 55155
Ref. No. 01-0082R
Dear Mr. Ritchie:
On April 24, 2001, we responded to your request for clarification of requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) for marking bulk packages containing petroleum distillate fuels (Ref. No. 01-0082). Specifically, we stated a fuel containing 80% ethyl alcohol and 20% petroleum was eligible for the marking exceptions in § 172.336(c)(4) or (5). Because of concerns about appropriate emergency response procedures for incidents involving alcohol and alcohol blends, we are retracting our April 24, 2001 letter and issuing this correction.
The marking exceptions in § 172.336(c)(4) and (5) permit a cargo tank containing different liquid petroleum distillate fuels to be marked with the identification number applicable to the distillate fuel having the lowest flash point. However, this marking exception may lead to some confusion for emergency responders handling a fire or other incident involving a fuel containing more than 10% alcohol. Fires involving ethanol/gasoline mixtures containing more than 10% ethanol must be treated differently than traditional gasoline fires because these flammable liquid mixtures tend to be polar/water-miscible (i.e., they mix with water) and will degrade the effectiveness of fire-fighting foam that is not alcohol-resistant. The 2004 Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG 2004) refers to Guide 127 (Flammable Liquids Polar/Water-Miscible) for incidents involving Alcohols, n.o.s., 3, UN1987, or Denatured alcohol, 3, NA1987. Guide 127 specifies the use of alcohol-resistant foam. Similarly, ERG 2004 refers to Guide 128 (Flammable Liquids Non-Polar/Water-Immiscible) for incidents involving Flammable liquids, n.o.s., (ethanol, gasoline) 3, UN1993, and Gasohol, 3 NA 1203. Guide 128 specifies the use of regular foam, but includes the following warning: "CAUTION: For mixtures containing a high percentage of an alcohol or polar solvent, alcohol-resistant foam may be more effective." To ensure emergency responders utilize the most effective emergency response procedures for fuel mixtures containing alcohol, bulk packagings containing fuel blends with more than 10% alcohol must be marked with the identification number applicable to the material being transported. The marking exceptions in § 172.336(c)(4) and (5) do not apply to such materials.
We have issued a Safety Alert to inform emergency responders of the appropriate emergency response guidance for responding to incidents involving fuel mixtures containing ethanol (or "ethyl alcohol") and gasoline in various concentrations. In addition, we are currently evaluating the need for changes to shipping descriptions and other hazard communication requirements for ethanol/gasoline fuel mixtures.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Mazzullo
Director, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards
172.336 |
| 05-0012 |
02-17-2005 |
49 CFR, Interpretation, Marking |
172.328, 172.334, 172.519 |
Feb 17, 2005
Mr. Bob Thompson Reference No. 05-0012
United Propane Gas Companies, Inc.
4200 Cairo Road
Paducah, Kentucky 42002-2450
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This responds to your January 18, 2005 letter and subsequent telephone conversation with a member of my staff requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask if the proper shipping name must be marked on the outside of a cargo tank in addition to the required placards and identification number markings for ammonia anhydrous and propane.
The answer is yes. A cargo tank containing a Class 2 material must be marked in accordance with Part 172, Subpart D and placarded in accordance with Part 172, Subpart F. A cargo tank containing a Class 2 material must be marked with the proper shipping name specified in the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT; § 172.101), or an appropriate common name for the material (e.g., “Refrigerant Gas”) in accordance with § 172.328. However, § 172.328 provides an exception from the requirement to mark the proper shipping name or common name on certain nurse tanks that are marked in accordance with § 173.315(m).
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.
Sincerely,
John A. Gale
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
172.328, 172.334, 172.519 |