{"operation":"document","citation":"05-0219","title":"Moulden Supply Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2005-10-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"05-0219 response to Moulden Supply Company concerning 180.407.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0219.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0219.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0219","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2005/050219.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\nOCT 28 2005\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nHazardous Materials Safety\nMr. Robert R. Titcomb\nRef. No. 05-0219\nMoulden Supply Company\n3600 Hwy 80 West\nJackson, MI 39209\nDear Mr. Titcomb:\nThis is in response to your July 11, 2005 letter requesting clarification of the rear-end\nprotection requirements for cargo tanks under the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Below we provide a discussion of the phrase\n\"Registered Inspector,\" paraphrase you specific questions, and provided answers to those\nquestions.\nAny person performing or witnessing the inspections or tests specified in 180.407(c)\nmust meet the minimum qualifications for inspectors and testers in § 180.409. The\nperson must be: (1) registered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in\naccordance with 49 CFR Part 107; (2) familiar with DOT specification cargo tanks; (3)\ntrained and experienced in the use of the necessary inspection and testing equipment; and\n(4) have the training and experience required to meet the definition of a \"Registered\nInspector\" provided in § 171.8. The phrase \"Registered Inspector\" is defined as a person\nregistered with the DOT in accordance with Subpart F of 49 CFR Part 107 who has the\nknowledge and ability to determine whether a cargo tank conforms to the applicable DOT\nspecification. A Registered Inspector may meet the knowledge and ability requirements\nof this section through any one of the following requirements:\n1. An engineering degree and one year of work experience relating to the testing and\ninspection of cargo tanks;\n2. An associate degree in engineering and two years of work experience relating to\nthe testing and inspection of cargo tanks;\n3. A high school diploma (or General Equivalency Diploma) and three years of work\nexperience relating to the testing and inspection of cargo tanks; or\n4. At least three years' experience performing the duties of a Registered Inspector\nprior to September 1, 1991.\nRequirements for accident damage protection devices installed on specification cargo\ntanks are established in Part 178 of the HMR. In accordance with the definition of a\nRegistered Inspector, the person inspecting the cargo tank fer compliance with the HMR\nmust determine if the cargo tank motor vehicle, including accident damage protection,\nconforms to the applicable DOT specification. In addition, § 178.320(b) clearly states\nthat accident damage protection devices must be certified to conform to the specification\n180.407\nrequirements by a Design Certifying Engineering (DCE).\n180.413\n050219\nQ1. Must the rear-end protection be examined and given a certificate of compliance\nunder the external visual inspection requirements in § 180.407(d) or in accordance with\nthe pressure test requirements in § 180.407(g)?\n\n<<>>\n\nAl. The Registered Inspector must perform the external visual inspection in accordance\nwith the requirements found in § 180.407(d). Accident damage protection devices are\npart of the tank specification and must be inspected for corroded or abraded areas, dents,\ndistortions, defects in welds and any other conditions that might render the tank unsafe\nfor transportation service. In addition, all major appurtenances and structural attachments\nmust be inspected for any corrosion and damage that might prevent safe operation. Any\nmissing nuts and bolts must be replaced, and all nuts and bolts must be tightened. In\naddition, § 180.407(d)(7) requires the inspector to record the results of the external visual\ninspection in accordance with § 180.417(b). No certificate is required to be issued by the\nRegistered Inspector for rear-end protection devices.\nThe pressure test requirements in § 180.407(g) apply to the cargo tank wall, not to\nstructural attachments or appurtenances. Therefore, the HMR do not require rear-end\nprotection analysis to be conducted as part of the pressure test.\nRear-end protection devices are part of the specification and must be examined and\nevaluated in accordance with the specification in effect at the time of construction to\ndetermine compliance. This would include the methods and means of attachment of the\nrear-end protection device to the chassis to transmit the required loads directly to the\nchassis of the cargo tank motor vehicle. Simply observing the rear-end protection device\nand saying that it does not comply with the specification is not sufficient to support an\nassertion that the rear-end protection device does not meet the specification\nrequirements. If a determination is made that the rear-end protection does not comply,\nthen a Design Certifying Engineer (DCE) should perform structural analysis on the rear-\nend protection device and its attachment to the frame to determine compliance with the\nspecification in effect at the time of construction.\nin Parts 178 and 180?\nQ2. Who is responsible for ensuring that the rear-end protection meets the requirements\nA2. It is the tank owner's responsibility to ensure that the rear end protection device and\ncorresponding certification documents conform with Part 178. The certification\ndocuments may be reviewed by a Registered Inspector to determine if the rear-end\nprotection device installed on the tank conforms to the original design. If the rear-end\nprotection device installed on the tank does not conform to the original design, the owner\nmust provide documentation certified by a Design Certifying Engineering that the rear-\nend protection device installed on the cargo tank motor vehicle complies with the\nspecification requirements in effect at the time the rear-end protection device was\nmodified.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.\nSincerely,\n?\nJohn A. Gale\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<>>\n\nSupko\nPage 1 of 1\n$180.407\nGorsky, Susan \n$180.413\nFrom:\nShelton, Danny \nCargo Tanks\nSent:\nMonday, July 11, 2005 11:12 PM\nTo:\nGorsky, Susan ; Mitchell, Hattie \n05 - 0219\nCc:\nHochman, Charles ; Staniszewski, Stanley ; Simmons, James «FMCSA>\nSubject: Request for interpretation\nrear end protection devices as part of the external visual and pressure tests. My standard response has been as\nPlease see the following e-mail from Moulden Supply Company requesting guidance regarding the evaluation of\nfollows: The Registered Inspector must have the ability to determine whether a cargo tank conforms to the\nto determine compliance. Simply looking at the rear end protection device and saying that it does not comply with\napplicable DOT specification. The rear end protection devices are part of the specification and must be evaluated\nnot meet the specification requirements. If, based on your level of expertise, you believe the rear end protection\nthe specification is not sufficient documentation to support your position that the rear end protection device does\ndevice does not comply, a Design Certifying Engineer (DCE) should perform structural analysis on the rear end\nprotection device and its attachment to the frame to determine compliance.\ndefinition of a Registered Inspector the same way that I am. This is going to be big because in the past we have\nWe are getting a lot more of these questions lately because more and more inspection facilities are reading the\nhave the ability to determine whether a cargo tank conforms to the specification. Well, you cannot do one without\nsaid that an RI is not required to perform structural analysis to determine compliance yet we required the RI to\ndoing the other.\nWe need to decide one and for all what we are going to require from a Registered Inspector. We need to either\nthe definition to make sure that defects in the accident damage protection devices are repaired prior to passing\nchange the definition of an RI to not require and structural analysis (I do not recommend that position) or clarify\nThanks in advance for your help.\nFrom: MOULDENJAC@aol.com [mailto: MOULDENJAC@aol.com]\nSent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:54 PM\nTo: Shelton, Danny\nSubject: Pictures you requested. (1 of 6)\nMr. Danny Shelton:\nperform a pressure test as required every 5 years or a visual inspection as required yearly on a CTMV for\nThese are the pics you were promised. I would like an answer to the following questions: When asked to\nLiquified Petroleum Gas (propane), do the minimum requirements for conducting a pressure test or visual\nprotection of the CTMV as described in CFR 49, section 180 for a registered inspector to properly decal the\ninspection include a rear-end protection analysis or a certicificate of compliance concerning the rear-end\nCFR 49 section 178, 180? It has been our practice to bring a CTMV into full DOT compliance during a 5 year\nCTMV? Who is responsible for insuring that a CTMV rear-end protection meets current regulations as stated in\ntaking their business to traveling inspectors that do not look at rear end protection.\npressure test inspection. My customers complain that I am requiring more that the minimum requirements and\nRobert R. Titcomb, President\n601-922-4611\nMoulden Supply Company\n601-922-4666 (fax)\n9/6/2005\n\n<<>>","truncated":false,"body_characters":9235}