{"operation":"document","citation":"11-0237","title":"Chart, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2012-02-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"11-0237 response to Chart, Inc. concerning 180.203, 180.211.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0237.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0237.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0237","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/110237.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nu.s. Deportment Washington. DC 20590\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nFEB 13 2Q12\nMr. Steve Therneau\nChart Inc.\n1300 Airport Drive\nBall Ground, GA 30107\nReference No.: 11-0237\nDear Mr. Themeau:\nThis responds to your letter requesting clarification of Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the repair and rebuild of Department of\nTransportation (DOT) 4 series specification cylinders. Specifically, you seek clarification\nof the definitions of\"repair\" and \"rebuild\" with regard to DOT specification cylinders and\nthe associated requirements for the repair and rebuild of DOT specification cylinders.\nIn your letter, you state it is your understanding that ifthe inner vessel of a DOT -4 series\ncylinder has not been compromised, there is no requirement to test the cylinder in\naccordance with the specifications under which the cylinder was originally manufactured\nas specified in § 180.211(c)(2)(i).\nYour understanding with regard to cylinder repair is not correct. The term \"repair\" is\ndefined in § 180.203 as a procedure for correction of a rejected cylinder that may involve\nwelding. A repair i.s not limited to the correction of a rejected cylinder that has had only\nits' inner vessel compromised. Therefore, DOT-4 series cylinders requiring repair, as\ndefined in § 180.203, must do so in accordance with § 180.211. In addition, DOT 4L\ncylinders must meet additional requirements for repair specified in § 180.21 1 (c) including\nbeing pressure-tested in accordance with the specifications under which the cylinder was\noriginally manufactured. DOT 4L cylinders which undergo procedures that are not defined\nas a repair in § 180.203 are not subject to the requirements of § 180.211(c) including the\nrequirement to be pressure-tested in accordance with the specifications under which the\ncylinder was originally manufactured.\nFurthermore, you also state it is your understanding that if the inner vessel of a DOT-4\nseries cylinder has been compromised, it constitutes a rebuild and must be subjected to the\nrequirements specified in § 180.211 (d), and a proof pressure test, as specified in\n§ 180.211(e)(3).\nYour understanding with regard to cylinder rebuild is partially correct. The tenn \"rebuild\"\nis defined in § 180.203 as the replacement of a pressure part (e.g. a wall, head, or pressure\nfitting) by welding. While a \"rebuild\" would be required when the inner vessel of a DOT\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n4 series cylinder is compromised, it is not the only scenario that would constitute a\n\"rebuild.\" DOT-4 series cylinders requiring rebuild, as defined in § 180.203, must do so in\naccordance with § 180.211. In addition, DOT 4L cylinders must meet additional\nrequirements for repair specified in § 180.211( e) including proof pressure testing each\ninner containment vessel at 2 times its service pressure. DOT 4L cylinders which undergo\nprocedures that are not defined as a rebuild in § 180.203 are not subject to the requirements\nof § 180.203(e).\nIf a DOT-4 series cylinder needs repair or rebuild as defined in § 180.203 and that cylinder\nis designed so that it is not possible to safely pressure test the cylinder in accordance with\nthe specification which the cylinder was originally manufactured, you may request a\nspecial permit to except the cylinder from the requirement to be subjected to the pressure\ntests specified in § 180.211(c) and (e). Your application should be directed to the\nApprovals and Permits Division and should include specific and detailed information\nconcerning the rationale for excepting the cylinder from the pressure test requirements.\nThe procedures for applying for a special permit are in 49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B. You\nmay also obtain this information at our website at\nhttp://www .phmsa. dot.gov /hazmat/regs/sp-a.\nWe appreciate your bringing this issue to our attention. PHMSA will attempt to improve\nthe clarity of this issue in a future rulemaking.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nClulrtInc.\nDistribution & Stora.ee Grol\n1300 Airport Drive\nBall Ground, GA 30107\nPhone: 770.479.6531 Fax: 770.479.4603\nwww.chart-ind.com\n.\nSeptember 12, 2011 1?;>e nedlefU.S.\nDOT ~ reb· ~II\nPHMSA Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Cui in cI er:s\nAttn: PHH-10\nEast Building -J II'\" fJz...37\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nAttn: Glenn Foster\nReference: Registration K-058\nDear Mr. Foster,\nAfter discussions with DOT enforcement personnel and DOT engineering personnel, it was\nrecommended that we request a formal interpretation related to CFR 49 paragraph 180.211 (c) (2) (i).\nThe text in question states that \"after repair, the cylinder must be pressure tested in accordance with the\nspecifications under which the cylinder was originally manufactured:\".\nIt has been our position that if the inner'vessel has not been compromised in accordance with 180.211\n(c) (ii) then there are no original manufacturing pressure test requirements applicable. If the inner vessel\nis compromised, then it constitutes a rebuild as defined in 180.211 (d) (iv) (A) and the requirements of\n180.211 (e) (3) are then applicable.\nFor additional information, we do conduct an integrity pressure test of the plumbing components at a\npressure less than allowed by the primary relief device. The tests defined in 180.211 (c) (2) (ii) and (iii)\nare completed as specified.\nIf you require further clarification, the position has been discussed in detail with Duane Cassidy, Ben\nSmith, Wayne Chaney, John Heneghan, Rafaat Shafkey, and Mark Toughiry. They can provide further\ninSight into the background for the interpretation.\nThank you for your consideration. We look forward to a favorable response. Please advise if you have\nany questions or concerns. Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.\nRegards,\nSteve Therneau\nQuality Assurance I Regulatory Compliance Manager","truncated":false,"body_characters":5996}