# Barlen and Associates, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation **Citation:** 08-0251 **Type / status:** guidance / guidance **Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration **Effective:** Not stated **Published:** 2008-10-17 08-0251 response to Barlen and Associates, Inc. concerning 173.301. ## Document text <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 OCT 1 7 2008 Mr. William Barlen Barlen and Associates, Inc. 24 Gettysburg Court Allentown, NJ 085 10 Ref: 08-025 1 Dear Mr. Barlen: This is in reference to your September 14, 2008 letter requesting a clarification of the requirement in 5 173.301(a)(3) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 17 1 - 180) that: "Pressure relief devices must be tested for leaks before a filled cylinder is shipped from the cylinder filling plant." Specifically, you ask whether a manufacturer's certification report stating a cylinder has been tested and is being shipped to the customer "leak free" may be used to satisfy the requirement in 5 173.301(a)(3). The answer is no. Each time that a cylinder is filled, its pressure relief devices must be tested for leaks before the cylinder is shipped from the cylinder filling plant. The requirement in § 173.301(a)(3) must be read in conjunction with the separate requirement in the preceding paragraph that: "Before each filling of a cylinder, the person filling the cylinder must visually inspect the outside of the cylinder. A cylinder that has a crack or a leaking or defective pressure relief device, or bears evidence of physical abuse, fire, or heat damage, or detrimental rusting or corrosion, may not be filled and offered for transportation." 49 CFR § 173.301(a)(2). Both of these requirements apply to the person who fills a cylinder and offers the filled cylinder for transportation. They are distinct from the separate requirements in Subpart C of Part 178 of the HMR that a cylinder manufacturer must test all completed cylinders for leakage and to reject any cylinder that leaks. See, for example, § 178.36(m), governing DOT specification 3A and 3AX seamless steel cylinders, that "All spun cylinders and plugged cylinders must be tested for leakage by gas or air pressure . . ." Accordingly, each specified test or inspection must be performed in the manner prescribed by the HMR and with acceptable results. Therefore, as stated, after a cylinder is filled, it must be tested for leaks before being offered for transportation. The person who offers the cylinder for transportation is responsible for <<>> ensuring this requirement has been met. That person may not rely on a prior certification that, at the time of manufacture (which may be many years earlier), the cylinder was tested and certified to be "leak free." I trust this adequately addresses your concerns. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Hattie L. Mitchell Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards <<>> pl( tChe I I BARLEN and ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consulting to the Compressed Gas Industry Government Safety Department of Transportation (US and Canada) Hazardous Material Regulations Cylinder 8 Valve Testing, Chemical Analysis, UT, Electron Microscope, etc. Forensic Investigation Consulting Hattie L. Mitchell Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards U.S. Department of Transportation I200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 14 September 2008 Dear Ms. Mitchell, I am currently representing a client who manufactures compressed gas shipping containers to DOT Standards and Specifications. When they are delivered to the customer the customer is given a test report that includes a certification that the unit being delivered has been tested and is being shipped to the customer "leak free". The "new" container in question was filled by the customer with a hazardous material who then subsequently shipped it to a US Port for shipment to Europe. At the port a port employee noticed that a relief device was leaking, i.e. the leak had enough of a velocity that it could be heard at some distance from the container. The reason for this letter is that I have stated to the oter side of this case that under: 49 CFR 173.301 - General requirements for shipment of compressed gases and other hazardous materials in cylinders, UN pressure receptacles and spherical pressure vessels. (a) (3) Pressure relief devices must be tested for leaks before a filled cylinder is shipped from the cylinder filling plant. I.e., that it is the filler's responsibility to check for leaks AFTER the container is filled and that they cannot legally ship a container based only on the container manufacturer's leak test. The opposing side maintains (as paraphrased to remove the name of the companies involved) that: "Such an argument is tenuous because "the container manufacturing comvany" provided leak test certifications when it delivered the trailers to the "the comDany that filled the container". Therefore "the comDanv that filled the container" justifiably relied on those certifications and put the trailers into service. "The container manufacturing companv" will have a difficult time convincing a jury that "the comvany that filled the container" should not have relied on ''the container manufacturinp companv'fl written certification that leak tests had been performed and that the trailers had passed those tests." The DOT tube leaked at the relief device and the company that filled the container admits they never leaked checked the tubes after filling and before offering the containers for shipment by common carrier. As I stated, the opposing side maintains that "Pressure relief devices must be tested for leaks before a filled cylinder is shipped from the cylinder filling plant" does not mean "after being filled. Your response would be helpful to me. Sincerely, WiUicwM/SwZeM/ William Barlen 24 Gettysburg Court, Allentown N.J. - OFFICE - 609-223-0019, CELL - 609-802-4627, e-mail - Barlen@optonline.net ## Provenance - Official: Yes - Source: - Source ID: `phmsa` - SHA-256: `be71e888530f6f1760aa4516c83a97529554b20f298aa9cf8fac08765ebafce1` - Retrieved: 2026-08-20T00:59:31.977Z - Exported: 2026-08-24T10:53:15.179Z - Document slug: `phmsa-interpretation-08-0251` ### Source metadata ```json { "materialSubtype": "interpretation", "interpretationArea": "hazardous_materials", "representation": "full_text_from_official_pdf", "companies": [ "Barlen and Associates, Inc." ], "individuals": [ "Mr. William Barlen" ], "refIds": [ "08-0251" ], "catalogDates": [ "2008-10-17" ], "catalogParts": [ 173 ], "catalogRowCount": 1, "sourceRecordUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/50986" ], "linkedAttachmentUrls": [], "unavailableResponseUrls": [], "duplicateRepresentationUrls": [], "citedSections": [ "173.301", "173.301(a)(3)", "178.36(m)" ], "catalogPageUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/173301" ], "pdfUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080251.pdf" ], "representations": [ { "viewUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080251.pdf", "detailUrl": null, "detailHtmlPath": null, "pdfUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080251.pdf", "pdfArtifactPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/08-0251-20dc77f80c.pdf", "pdfArtifactSha256": "d52e0546c5fcc6009c2d95163404bf077e3cbc788d8c53bbee31927f3b99b0be", "extractedTextPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/08-0251-20dc77f80c.v2.txt", "extractedTextSha256": "2213d739f2618a4c9fcdd0639ff41f500bb4352853b6497518d3222f583ad29f", "pageCount": 3, "extractionVersion": 2 } ], "caveat": "Interpretations apply regulations to the facts presented and do not create independently enforceable requirements.", "jurisdiction": "US" } ```