{"operation":"document","citation":"10-0268","title":"Cobham Mission Systems Division — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2011-03-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"10-0268 response to Cobham Mission Systems Division concerning 173.35, 173.7.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0268.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0268.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0268","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2010/100268.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation 1 200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nMr. Brent Raiber\nCobham Mission Systems Division\n10 Cobham Drive\nOrchard Park, NY 14127\nReference No.: 10-0268\nDear Mr. Raiber:\nThis letter responds to your e-mail concerning third party inspection of pressurized cylinders that\nhave a Department of Defense (DOD) Certificate of Equivalency (COE) under the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to clarify a previously issued letter of\ninterpretation, issued on October 23,2003 [Ref. No. 03-0261] and addressed to Carleton\nTechnologies Inc. This letter specified that if a company has a CaE for a cylinder, under certain\ncircumstances, the cylinder may be certified by a \"resident government inspector,\" as opposed to\nusing a third party Department of Transportation (DOT) inspector.\nCurrently, Cobham Mission Systems Division, previously known as Carleton Technologies Inc.,\nemploys Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to act as government officials to\nensure compliance. In your email, you state that DCMA is the same entity previously identified\nby Carleton in the prior letter of interpretation as the resident government inspector, and that\nDCMA is not identified as a current approved third party inspector by PHMSA.\nIn accordance with the requirements of § 173.7(a), hazardous materials offered for transportation\nby, for, or to the DOD of the U.S. Government, including commercial shipments pursuant to a\nDOD contract, must be packaged in accordance with the regulations of the HMR or in\npackagings of equal or greater strength as certified by DOD in accordance with the procedures\nprescribed by \"Packaging of Hazardous Material, DLAD4145.4I1AR 700-143/AFJI 2421O/NAVSUPINST\n4030.55B/MCO 4030.40B.\"\nA \"resident government inspector\" is not defined in the HMR. However, in the context used in\nthe previously issued letter of interpretation, the term refers to an individual who has been\ntrained in accordance with § 172.704 of the HMR and the DOD regulations, specifically the\nprocedures prescribed by \"Packaging of Hazardous Material, DLAD 4145.4I1AR 700-143/AFJI\n24-21O/NAVSUPINST 4030.55B/MCO 4030.40B.\" In accordance with § 173.7(a), hazardous\nmaterials packagings offered for transportation by, for, or to the DOD of the U.S. Government,\nincluding commercial shipments pursuant to a DOD contract may be inspected by a \"resident\ngovernment inspector\" to determine equivalence to an appropriate DOT specification.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nYou also seek clarification as to the exact roles and responsibilities required of the \"resident\ngovernment inspector\" with regard to § 178.35 of the HMR. Section § 173.7(a) applies to the\ncontinued use of a packaging and not to the manufacture of that packaging. The previous letter\nyou referenced, Ref. No. 03-0261, allows for the inspection of a COE cylinder for reshipment in\norder to determine equivalence to an appropriate DOT specification, but does not address the\nmanufacturing of COE cylinders. A \"resident government inspector\" may certify a packaging is\nof equal or greater strength and efficiency to those specifications detailed in the HMR.\nHowever, a \"resident government inspector\" is not authorized to conduct an inspection of a\ncylinder manufacturer in accordance with § 178.35. Only an independent inspection agency\napproved in writing by the Associate Administrator may inspect and certify that a cylinder is\nmanufactured in accordance with § 178.35.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDrakeford. Carolyn (PHMSA)\nFrom: Betts, Charles (PHMSA) \n IO-Dzb8\nSent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:06 AM\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nCc: Vos, Brian (PHMSA)\nSubject: Fw: Interpretation of Letter of Interpretation\nAttachments: COE Letter of Interpretation. pdf\nCarolyn-\nPlease log in this new request for clarification\nFrom: Vos, Brian (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, December 21, 201007:56 AM\nTo: Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Interpretation of Letter of Interpretation\nCharles,\nI thought this was a Cylinder question so I forwarded it to Duane Cassidy, but he noted that the sender is asking for\nfurther clarification related to the letter of interpretation they already received. Can you either forward this to the\nproper party or let me know who it should go to so I can send it myself? Thanks! -Brian Vos\nFrom: Raiber, Brent [mailto:Brent.Raiber@Cobham.com]\nSent: Friday, December 17, 20103:59 PM\nTo: Vos, Brian (PHMSA)\nCc: Raiber, Brent\nSubject: Interpretation of Letter of Interpretation\nBrian,\nI am looking for the correct contact at the DOT and was hoping that you could either answer my question or\npoint me in the proper direction. Carleton received a \"letter of interpretation\" (attached) back in 2003 pertaining to third\nparty inspection of our pressurized cylinders that have a DoD Certificate of Equivalency. Please take a look at the\nattached document as we require further clarification regarding the qualifications of our \"resident government\ninspectors\". The letter seems to indicate that our resident government inspectors do not need to be \"DOT Approved\" as\nthird party inspectors. Can you or someone at your office please provide some more clarification with regard to the\nqualifications required for the inspector as identified in the letters attached? We would really appreciate any assistance\nthat you could provide.\nThank you,\nBrent Raiber\nBrent Raiber\nDesign Engineer\nCobham Mission Systems Division\nT:+1 (716) 667 6240\nF: + 1 (716) 662 0747\nbrent.raiber@cobham.com\ncarleton Technologies Inc. doing business as Cobham Mission Systems Division It{ww.t;Qbham.com\nRegistered office 10 Cobham Drive, Orchard Park, NY 14127 USA\nPlease consider the environment before .....;'''~'r.'' this email.\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":6060}