# Breed — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation **Citation:** 03-0062 **Type / status:** guidance / guidance **Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration **Effective:** Not stated **Published:** 2003-03-19 03-0062 response to Breed concerning 178.65. ## Document text <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Research and WAR 19 208 Washington, D.C. 20590 Administration s Mr. David Gamlen Manager, Packaging Engineering Breed Ref. No.: 03-0062 5300 Allen K. Breed Highway P.O. Box 33050 Lakeland, FL 33807-3050 Dear Mr. Gamlen: This is in reference to your February 27, 2003 letter concerning the specification requirements in 49 CFR 178.65 for DOT 39 specification non-reusable cylinders and the exemption requirements in DOT-E 11993. Specifically, you inquired whether a proof pressure test (without determination of expansion) must be performed on the cylinder that is hydrostatically tested to line to vent the cylinder and prepare it for the hydrostatic test. destruction under § 178.65(f(2). You expressed concern about interrupting the manufacturing The answer is yes. Under § 178.65(f), both pressure tests must be performed. Paragraph (f(1) requires that each cylinder must be given a proof pressure test; whereas, paragraph (f)(2) requires that one cylinder taken from each designated lot be tested to destruction. The cylinder taken from the lot be burst tested may meet the leak test and burst test requirements during the same test. This can be done if the cylinder meets the requirement of § 178.65(f)(1) by being held at test pressure for at least 30 seconds without leaking, and then continues to be pressurized to destruction in accordance with the requirements of § 178.65(f(2). For DOT-E 11993, the hold time would be 10 seconds instead of 30 seconds. Most of the other low-pressure cylinder specifications have different requirements. As an lesignated lot must be given a hydrostatic test with determination of total and permanent example, the DOT 4B specification in § 178.50(i) requires that one cylinder taken from each volumetric expansions. All other cylinders must be given a proof pressure test. I hope this satisfies you inquiry. Should you have any further questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Hathe z. Mithell Hattie L. Mitchell Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards 178.65 BOHEMINI 030062 <<>> BREED 5300 Allen K. Breed Highway World Headquarters Lakeland, Florida 33807-3050 P.O. Box 33050 Telephone 863-668-6035 Fax 863-668-6228 Mitchell February 27, 2003 8118:656) Hattie Mitchell Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Cylinders Office of Hazardous Materials Standards US Department of Transportation / DHM-12 03-0062 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, DC 20590-0001 Subject: Request for Letter of Interpretation Concerning Pressure Tests of non-DOT Specification Cylinders, reference DOT-E 11993 and 49CFR178.65(f). Dear Ms. Mitchell: BREED Technologies, Inc., at the above address, requests a letter of interpretation concerning pressure tests of non-DOT specification cylinders. BREED is manufacturing the non-DOT specification cylinders in accordance with exemption DOT-E 11993. Pressure tests are referenced in paragraph 7(b)(1) of the exemption. This paragraph requires testing per 49CFR178.65(f), except that the hold time at test pressure specified in 178.65(f)(1) must be no less than 10 seconds. The issue that has been raised is whether or not proof testing is required to be operations currently are and have always performed a proof test, prior to pertormed on the vessel used for hydrostatic testing. BREED's manufacturing performing the hydrostatic test to destruction. A relatively new employee, who previously worked for one of our competitors, says that the competition is not performing the proof test prior to hydrostatic test. This employee claims that we are being held to a more stringent interpretation of the regulations. This is an issue for operations because the proof test is performed on the manufacturing line and the hydrostatic test is performed off-line. The manufacturing line must be interrupted during production so that the gas in the proof tested vessel can be carefully vented prior to removal from the production line. This process results in down time and loss of productivity. BREED Request for Letter of Interpretation of Pressure Tests. Pare 1 of 2 <<>> The independent inspection agencies differ in their interpretation of this issue. I spoke with a person in the Office of Hazardous Materials Technology who thought the regulation could be interpreted either way. The person commented that it a cylinder passed the hydrostatic test, it would certainly pass the proof test. If you have any questions or require additional information or documentation to (863)668-6228 or by e-mail at gamlend@breedtech.com. process this request, I can be reached by telephone at (863)668-6035, by fax at Sincerely, David Gamber David Gamlen Manager, Packaging Engineering BREED Request for Letter of Interpretation of Pressure Tests. Page 2 of 2 ## Provenance - Official: Yes - Source: - Source ID: `phmsa` - SHA-256: `c6063a4263e45668efb96a1f2719da130f585883d95da78ecd5150e0cea74126` - Retrieved: 2026-08-20T00:59:31.977Z - Exported: 2026-08-22T04:59:24.630Z - Document slug: `phmsa-interpretation-03-0062` ### Source metadata ```json { "materialSubtype": "interpretation", "interpretationArea": "hazardous_materials", "representation": "full_text_from_official_pdf", "companies": [ "Breed" ], "individuals": [ "Mr. David Gamlen" ], "refIds": [ "03-0062" ], "catalogDates": [ "2003-03-19" ], "catalogParts": [ 178 ], "catalogRowCount": 1, "sourceRecordUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/60531" ], "linkedAttachmentUrls": [], "unavailableResponseUrls": [], "duplicateRepresentationUrls": [], "citedSections": [ "178.65", "178.50(i)" ], "catalogPageUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/17865" ], "pdfUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2003/030062.pdf" ], "representations": [ { "viewUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2003/030062.pdf", "detailUrl": null, "detailHtmlPath": null, "pdfUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2003/030062.pdf", "pdfArtifactPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/03-0062-7bb753c108.pdf", "pdfArtifactSha256": "787f1a82dacc307c3dcb31e480f8ca86551d137d1e8cbb393aad44645b34fc35", "extractedTextPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/03-0062-7bb753c108.v2.txt", "extractedTextSha256": "56ef7834e66056cf389a39e3487b45912262fc76c22d219ceb619a3c7fc2874a", "pageCount": 3, "extractionVersion": 2 } ], "caveat": "Interpretations apply regulations to the facts presented and do not create independently enforceable requirements.", "jurisdiction": "US" } ```