{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0273","title":"Mr. Andrew Abrams — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-12-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0273 concerning 173.315.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0273.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0273.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0273","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080273.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Admin~stration\nDEC 5 2f08\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWash~ngton, DC 20590\nMr. Andrew Abrarns\n761 West Sproul Road Unit 208\nSpringfield, PA 19064\nRef. No.: 08-0273\nDear Mr. Abrams:\nThis is in response to your October 28, 2008 letter requesting clarification of the\nrequirements for Design Certifying Engineers (DCEs) and Registered Inspectors (RIs) under\nthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 17 1 - 1 80). We provided you with\na letter (Ref. No.: 08-0205; copy enclosed) on October 21,2008 addressing the roles\nperformed by the DCE and RI during the assembly and installation of Smart-Hose Passive\nDevices. This letter provides additional clarification, as requested by your October 28,2008\nletter. Your questions are restated and answered as follows:\nQ1: Is the DCE's certification intended to be a \"one-time\" certification? What if the DCE\ndies or does not provide consent for the company to use the certification?\nA l : The DCE's certification indicates that the design and construction meets the applicable\nDOT specification. This is a \"one-time'' process; once the DCE approves the design and\nprovides the necessary documentation there is no need for the manufacturer to have the\ndesign recertified. The DCE certification remains effective with or without the consent of\nthe DCE and even in the event that the DCE dies. A new DCE certification is only required\nif the previously approved design is modified. As defined in 9 180.403, a \"modification\"\nmeans any change to the original design and construction of a cargo tank or cargo tank motor\nvehicle that affects its structural integrity or lading retention capability, including changes to\nequipment certified as part of an emergency discharge control system required under\n5 173.3 15(n)(2). Excluded are the replace~nent of components of similar design and of the\nsame size.\nQ2: Is the RI's supervision required for the installation of a hose-based system that provides\nthe required passive shut-down capability?\nA2: No. As explained in our October 2 1,2008 letter and provided in § 173.3 15(n)(2)(iii),\nRI supervision is not required for the installation of emergency discharge control equipment\nthat is installed and removed as part of regular operation of the cargo tank motor vehicle\n(e.g., a hose). It is the responsibility of the DCE to certify that the emergency discharge\ncontrol system is designed to automatically shut off product flow without the need for human\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nintervention within 20 seconds of an unintentional release caused by a complete separation of\na liquid delivery hose (tj 173.3 15(n)(2)(ii)). Given that the DCE approves the design of the\nemergency discharge control equipment and it is attached to a cargo tank motor vehicle in the\nsame way as an ordinary hose, RI supervision is not necessary.\nIn addition, if you are aware of an operator that is using a new or modified hose design that\nhas not been approved by a DCE you may file a complaint at\n1~tt~:llww.phmsa.dot.~ov/hazrnat/enforcement or contact our enforcement office directly at\n(202) 366-4700.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.\nSincerely,\nSusan Gorsky u\nRegulations Officer\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nAndrew Abrams\n761 West Sproul Road Unit 208\nSpringfield, PA 19064\nTuesday, October 28,2008\nMs. Susan Gorsky\nActing Chief, Standards Developmenmt\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Technology\nUS Department of Transportation PHMSA\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Building 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nRe: Letter of Interpretation - 49 CFR 173.3 1 5- Follow-Up\nDear Ms. Gorsky\nI am writing to follow-up on your October 21 letter in connection with the above\ncaptioned inquiry to ask for an additional clarification of the regulations as it relates to\nthe role of a DCE and Registered Inspector in the assembly and installation of certain\npassive devices.\nIn your letter you indicated that (1) The DCE is only required to certify that the design\nconfirms to the performance standard and that there is no requirement to review each\ncomponent throughout the manufacturing process.\nIssue: if the regulations indicate that\" All components of the discharge system that are\nintegral to the design must be included in the certljcation.\" and these components have\ncertain inconsistency such as sources of material or metallic composition, is the DCE's\ncertification intended to be a \"one-time\" certification?\nCan there be a certification issued by a now deceased DCE?\nDoes the DCE's certification need to specifically identify each of the components,\nsources of material, bills of material that they are certifying and if the\nmanufacturer changes these components, a new DCE certification might be\nrequired? If so, what would happen if the DCE issued a generic system\ncertification and then was no longer employed by the company - could the\ncompany continue to use the certification without hislher consent?\nIssue: In your reply you indicated that the Emergency Discharge Control Equipment\nmust \"be installed under the supervision of a Registered Inspector\" but you identified an\nambiguity regarding hoses. We believe that the regulations were promulgated in\nconnection with systems such as RF devices that are manufactured by one company but\nultimately both assembled and installed by the end-user (ie truck assembler) and not the\nmanufacturer. Therefore, the requirement for a Registered Inspector was to assure that\nthe svstem was correctlv installed and not put together by some unknowledgeable party.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nSince the Smart-Hose system (or any fully installed hose based passive device)\nhas its final installation completed by its own employees and not the end-user, is\nthe intent of the regulations to not require any supervision while this type of\npassive device is installed? Why would we require a Registered Inspector to\ninstall an RF system but require no supervision either by the manufacturer or the\nend user in the case of a hose based system?\nDo you agree that since the hose is installed merely by threading it onto the\nappropriate connection, if we define installed for hoses it would have been\nimpractical to have every truck driver become a RI. If however we define\n\"installed\" for hose based passive device systems to be when the passive device is\ninstalled within the hose, would it not make sense for an RI to oversee this\ninstallation and therefore be consistent with the intent of the regulations?\nWas the intent of the language \"under the supervision o f a Registered Inspector\"\nto require the system to Registered Inspector to look carefully at or over; view\nclosely and critically or examine formally or officially the installation of the\npassive device and therefore must this function be performed contemporaneously\nwith the installation of the system? More succinctly, can this function be\nperformed by someone who is not present during the installation?\nThank you for your consideration.\nSincerely,\n- --\nAndy Abrams","truncated":false,"body_characters":7081}