{"operation":"document","citation":"07-0077","title":"UPS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2009-07-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"07-0077 response to UPS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar concerning 180.205.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0077.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0077.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0077","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2007/070077.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. Robert A. Stewart\nUPS Component Shop Supervisor\nUPS Hydrostatic Shop\nUPS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar\n750 Grade Lane\nLouisville, KY 40213\nReference No. 07-0077\nDear Mr. Stewart:\nThis is in further reference to your follow-up letters inquiring about the cylinder\nrequalification requirements contained in 5 180.205 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask about the methods used to calibrate the\npressure test system. I apologize for the delay in responding.\nYour questions are paraphrased and answered below:\nQl. What tolerances apply to permanent expansion of a calibrated cylinder?\nAl. None. 49 CFR § 180.205, paragraph (g)(3) requires a cylinder requalifier to use a\ncalibrated cylinder or other method authorized in writing by the Associate Adiniriistrator for\nHazardous Materials Safety to verify the accuracy of a hydrostatic retest system, including\nboth the Pressure Indicating Device and the Expansion Indicating Device (ETD). Paragraph\n(g)(4) specifies that the calibrated cylinder must show \"no permanent expansion.\" This is a\nseparate requirement and is not related to the test equipment 21.0% accuracy requirement.\nThus, the HMR do not specify a tolerance in the determination of permanent expansion of a\ncalibrated cylinder when used to demonstrate the accuracy of a retest system. Any\npermanent expansion may indicate entrapment of air or other malf~~nction of the equipment.\nQ2. Does the requirement that the calibrated cylinder show no perinanent expansion hold a\nrequalifier who utilizes digital equipment, which measures expansion to a high degree of\nresolution, to a different standard than a requalifier who utilizes less sophisticated methods?\nA2. The requirement is the same regardless of the type of equipment used. The calibrated\ncylinder must show \"no permanent expansion.\" This means that the water level in the burette\nor the weigh bowl must return to the same point where it began - not slightly higher or\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nlower. Rounding is not permitted when determining whether the calibrated cylinder has\nshown permanent expansion. After depressurization of the calibrated cylinder, all of the\ndisplaced water must return to the water jacket. Any volume of water measured in the EID\nabove zero (or the original reading) indicates permanent expansion of the calibrated cylinder.\nIf this occurs, the equipment has not been proven to be accurate in accordance with the\nHMR.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have additional questions.\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nApril 6,2007\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nRef. No.: 07-0059\nRegulatory Review and Reinvention\nHattie Mitchell, Chief\n400 7\" St., S.W.\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Ms. Mitchell,\nThank you for your response to question #1 (Ref. No.: 07-0059) dated March 30,2007. However; United Parcel\nService Co. (UPS) is still awaiting your response to question #2 and question #3. Please provide this information as\nsoon as possible. Operators within the industry utilizing similar high quality electronic precision test systems, and\nnot the less accurate burette tubes, are also awaiting this response. The electronic precision test systems are capable\nof reading to 0.1 cubic centimeters (cc) through its full range\nQuestions:\n2. If the EID is allowed +1.0% accuracy, and the Calibrated cylinder is used to prove this accuracy Q1.0% of\nthe total expansion value of the Calibrated Cylinder), then according to 49 CFR180.205 paragraph (g)(3)(ii)\nand 49 CFR180.205 paragraphs (g)(4), what are the tolerance requirements of the device that do not pertain\nto certain readings (i.e. the permanent expansion reading of the calibrated cylinder).\n3. According to 180.205(g)(2) and (3), the EID is required to have a readability to within 1% of the Total\nExpansion, and an accuracy of 21.0% of the Total Expansion. However, according to your letter, the EID\nmust show zero (Occ) permanent expansion, in other words 20.0% tolerance. Please answer the following\nquestions specifically and explain your answers:\na. How can we be held to an accuracy and readability requirement that is higher than the device,\nitself, is required to have? (i.e. O.Occ Permanent Expansion reading for a device that is allowed\n+1 .O% deviation.) -\nb. Why are we being penalized for using higher quality equipment? These readings would not\neven be seen on a system using a burette. On a burette typc machine, the increments would be\n0.5cc, and the operator would record O.Occ for anything less tnan 0 . 5 ~ ~ . It is only because we\nhave invested in higher quality, digital equipment that these readings can even be detected.\nThese readings are smaller than the required resolution and accuracy requirements of the\ndevice, and would never be seen on the old burette type equipment. This lack of understanding\nof technical specifications for resolution and accuracy by PHMSA is penalizing users who\ninvest in higher quality equipment. If our machine was capable of reading in 0 . 0 0 1 ~ ~\nincrements, would you penalize us for 0 . 0 0 1 ~ ~ deviations? How far are you going to take this\nfoolishness?\nThe responses to these questions are very important and beneficial to our ultimate decision whether to request a\nFormal Administrative Hearing for the Notice of the Probable Violations on PHMSA Case No. 06-0257-CRS-CE.\nOnce again, I am requesting the Probable Violations on PHMSA Case No. 06-0257-CRS-CE be dismissed given the\nambiguity and disparate treatment under the regulations and the corrective actions already taken by UPS.\nI hope we can resolve this matter without having to request a Formal Administrative Hearing in accordance with 49\nCFR 107.319.\nBest Regar\n&4\nRobert A. Stewart\nUPc Component Shop Supervisor\nUPS Hydrostatic Shop (RIN number G305)\nUPS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar\n750 Grade Lane\nLouisville, KY 40213\nTelenhone: (502)-359-8274\nFax: (502)-359-7277","truncated":false,"body_characters":6144}