{"operation":"document","citation":"11-0284","title":"Northern California Fire Mechanics Association — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2012-02-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"11-0284 response to Northern California Fire Mechanics Association concerning 178.37.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0284.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0284.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0284","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/110284.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department Washington. DC 20590\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nFEB 1 6 2012\nMr. Frank Drayton\nFire Division Chief\n650 Merchant Street\nVacaville, CA 95688\nRef. No. 11-0284\nDear Chief Drayton:\nThis responds to your November 15,2011 and November 24,2011 follow-up email concerning\nthe requirements for cylinders under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n171-180). Specifically, you ask whether the HMR apply to DOT specification 3AA and 3AAX\ncylinders used by local fire departments for non-commercial purposes.\nIn accordance with Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), the\nHMR apply to the transportation ofhazardous materials in commerce. Hazardous materials\ntransported by a government entity in vehicles operated by government personnel for noncommercial\npurposes are not subject to the HMR However, this provision may not fully except\na government agency from the HMR A cylinder manufactured and marked in accordance with\nthe requirements established in the HMR must be maintained in accordance with applicable\nspecification requirements whether or not it is in transportation in commerce at any particular\ntime. Ifa government agency, such as a local fire department, uses cylinders marked in\naccordance with the HMR, the government agency is subject to the HMR relating to the\nmaintenance and use of those cylinders.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.\nSincerely,\n~::;#--\nBen Supko\nActing Chief, Standards Development\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nLeaC!J\n~ 11 G· 3'7\nN • c • F.M.A •\n~ I,nriers\nNorthern California Fire Mechanics Association 1/- DZ B4\nCode ofFederal Regulations\nCode Compliance Section\nRe: Cal-OSHA regulation negating DOT Regulation\nCalifornia Fire Service Pressure Vessel compliance\nDOT Inspection and Testing Standards\nPetition for DOT regulations ruling\nSirs:\nHistorically, from the time the fire service first began the installation of pressurized breathing air cylinders on\nmobile fire apparatus, the fire service has utilized DOT classified pressure vessels (prior service was ICC certified\npressure vessels). In some cases, where removal ofcylinders was problematic, ASME bottles were utilized but\ncreated special mounting issues, substantial weight increases, and exorbitant costs. When legal issues arise and the\nfire service is SUbjected to court of law events, the fire service wins or loses cases predicated to whether the fire\nservice complies with NFPA Standards, or not.\nRecent issues in California have arisen revolving around whether pressurized mobile pressure vessels fall under\nFederal DOT/CFR regulations and compliance as is indicated in NFPA 1901,2009 Edition, Section 24, et ai, or not.\nCal-OSHA has stipulated that fines will be initiated if all mobile breathing air pressure vessels are not removed and\nreplaced with ASME pressure vessels. They have taken this stance because they have a ruling from Federal DOT\nthat DOT cylinders are not California compliant because Federal DOT is not responsible for DOT inspection,\ntesting, and recertification requirements for DOT cylinders in non-commercial intrastate use. This determination is\nin direct conflict with the chapter and verse by which the fire service (both locally and nationally) designs and builds\nfire apparatus. The inference is that all DOT cylinders in use by the California fire service are not subject to DOT\nregulatory inspection, testing and recertification. This is completely contrary to the DOT Standard by which the\nCalifornia fire service has inspected, tested and recertified the extensive list of existing cylinders Statewide. To be\nable to purchase a fire apparatus that will meet mandates ofthe Laws, Regulations, and Standards, fire apparatus are\ndesigned and manufactured to meet NFPA 1901,2009 Edition (current and past), Standard for Automotive Fire\nApparatus. This is the Standard by which all members ofthe Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association (FAMA)\nbuild fire apparatus. It is the litmus test by which court issues are decided.\nTo quote NFPA 1901, the following is the Standard by which we comply:\n24.5.1 Transportable Air Tanks\n24.5.1.1 Transportable air tanks shall comply with 49 CFR 178.37, \"Specification 3AA and 3AAX seamless\nsteel cylinders,\" or 29 CFR 1910.169, \"Air Receivers.\"\n24.5.1.2 The air tank manufacturer shall provide a copy of either the U.S. Department of Transportation\n(DOT) certificate Report of Inspection of Gas Cylinders or the ASME certificate Manufacturers Data Report\nfor Pressure Vessels, and the certificate shall be delivered with the apparatus.\nBecause ofthis Standard, both ASME and DOT bottles are used in the fire service across the country.\nBy the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)\n(a) General qualification for use ofcylinders. (See §§ 173.1 through 173.30 for requirements apply.)\n(b) Grandfather clause. A cylinder in domestic use previous to the date upon which the specification therefore\nwas first made effective in thesc regulations may be used if the cylinder has been properly tested and\notherwise complies with the requirements applicable for the gas with which it is charged.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n[Recipient Name]\nNovember 4,2011\nPage 2\nHowever, under NFPA 190], a change since previous editions, in the Addenda section for mobile breathing air\nsupply, it reads as follows:\nA.24.S: In some states in the United States, the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health\nAdministration (OSHA) of the Department of Labor have been interpreted to require that DOT cylinders be\nused for mobile air tanks to transport air on state highways. If DOT cylinders are not required by state\nregulations, ASME cylinders should be utilized as air tanks if the design of the apparatus presents a severe\ndifficulty in the removal of the cylinders for testing. (It is not a difficult task to remove the DOT bottles every 5\nyears for hydrostatic testing) The bottles are firmly attached to the vehicles with brackets manufactured by the\napparatus builder and certified to perfonn the function as required.\nThen, the question becomes ............. What authorization or exemption has been given to Cal OSHA to transpOit\ncharged ASME cylinders on the highways? I do not find any reference to ASME bottles listed as the approved\ncylinders for highway transportation while charged. The fire service MUST alrive on scene, fully prepared to fight\nfire and activate breathing air systems.\nCCR: Subchapter 7. General Industry Safety Orders\nGroup 2. Safe Practices and Personal Protection\nAltide 10.1. Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment for Fire Fighters\n§3409. Respiratory Protection.\n(6) Air Cylinders. Approved self-contained compressed air breathing apparatus may be used with approved\ncylinders from other approved self-contained compressed air breathing apparatus provided that such cylinders are of\nthe same capacity and pressure rating. All compressed ail' cylinders used with self-contained breathing\napparatus (SCBA) shall meet United States Department of Transportation (BOT) and NIOSH criteria.\nThe DOT standard for DOT cylinder hydrostatic testing eliminates the] 0 year rule and mandates a 5 year hydro.\nPlease note that on aerial fire apparatus, when at the tip of an elevated ladder and when a firefighter's SCBA\nbreathing air cylinder on his back (30, 45 or 60 minute cylinders) is depleted, the firefighter then connects his\numbilical line to the on-board apparatus SCBA supply cylinders (244cfair capacity typical) which then becomes the\nSCBA life support breathing air supply.\nA local fire department has complied with the Cal-OSHA ruling and changed out their 8 (eight) DOT rated bottles\nat their fire department at a cost of $28,000. Can you see the issue of the cost statewide? [t will be in the $M's. In\nthis single case it did result in a substantial weight increase for the associated mobile chassis. Luckily for this\nagency, it did not result in the need for a complete chassis replacement to meet CA Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings\n(GVWR). In many cases, it will result in not simply replacing the pressure vessels, but the mobile chassis as well or\nsubstantially reduce the quantity of live saving air due to the decrease in the numbers of pressurized vessels.\nThe best case scenario, especially in these times ofcritical monetary shortfalls, is to rule that all DOT classified\npressure vessels/cylinders continue to be inspected, maintained, tested and re-certified to existing DOT standards\nand falls under the authority ofFederal DOT. Following a yet to be detennined date, all pressurized breathing air\ncylinders in use by California emergency services agencies will confonn to Cal-OSHA Regulations, i.e. ASME\npressure vessels.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAnthony D. Bulygo\nCalifornia Fire Chief's Association\nSafety Committee Member/Consultant\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nN.C.F.M.A.\nNorthern California Fire Mechanics Association\nCode of Federal Regulations\nCode Compliance Section\nRe: Cal-OSHA regulation negating DOT Regulation\nCalifornia Fire Service Pressure Vessel compliance\nDOT Inspection and Testing Standards\nSupplemental to White Letter of November 04,2011\nSirs:\nCal-OSHA states that a safety issue exists whereby the absence of regulations in place for DOT pressure vessels in\nuse by non-commercial end users is not acceptable. The absence of regulations for DOT pressure vessels requires\nthat Cal-OSHA mandate the removal of DOT pressure vessels from use by the fire and emergency service agencies\nin California. Cal-OSHA states it has come to this conclusion following contact with Fed DOT which has stated to\nCal-OSHA that Fed CPR mandates do not apply to non-commercial users. The end result of the Fed DOT statement\nis that Cal-OSHA has ruled that DOT pressure vessels in use by the FirelEmergency services sector in California are\nunregulated and must be removed from service and replaced with ASME pressure vessels which are under the\nregulatory control of Cal-OSHA.\nThe California rITe service does, in fact, stipulate that all pressure vessels must be maintained and tested regularly to\nregulatory standards.\nIn a recent meeting with Cal-OSHA officials, Mr. Don Cook, Principal Engineer, stated very plainly: IfFed DOT\nwere to issue a letter to Cal-OPSHA stating that DOT pressure vessels in use by the FirelEmergency Service\nservices in California fall under the same guidelines and regulations as commercial users for inspection,\nmaintenance and testing/recertification, the issue would go away. All of which leads to a single question to Fed\nDOT: Why would Fed DOT not mandate regulation of DOT pressure vessels in CA and why would Fed DOT not\nissue a letter stating that the appropriate CPR pertains to those DOT cylinders in use in this vocation?\nCalifornia Fire Service desires to comply with any and all Laws, Regulations, and Standards in place for any safety\nissue. The fire service believes we have been doing the right thing and complying for the past 40 years. A letter to\nCal-OSHA, assuring them that the DOT pressure vessels in use by the California FirelEmergency services are, in\nfact, covered by CPR regulations.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAnthony D. Bulygo\nCalifornia Fire Chief's Association\nSafety Committee Member/Consultant\nNovember 21, 2011","truncated":false,"body_characters":11372}