{"operation":"document","citation":"13-0137","title":"Western Sales and Testing, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2013-12-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"13-0137 response to Western Sales and Testing, Inc. concerning 180.207, 180.209.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0137.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0137.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0137","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2013/130137.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nfl'·\nMr. Mark Griffin\nWestern Sales and Testing, Inc.\n114 E. 46t\\ P.O. Box 2446\nAmarillo, TX 79105\nRef. No. 13-0137\nDear Mr. Griffin:\nThis responds to your June 24, 2013 email regarding the requalification requirements for a\nseamless steel UN pressure receptacle (cylinder) under§ 180.207(d)(l) ofthe Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask whether use of\nthe water jacket volumetric expansion test (i.e., a hydraulic pressure test) is authorized for a\nseamless steel UN cylinder with a tensile strength~ 950 MPa.\nYour interpretation of§ 180.207(d)(l) is that ultrasonic examination using ISO standard\n6406 is required for a seamless steel UN cylinder with a tensile strength~ 950 MPa.\nHowever, you question why the HMR requires this ultrasonic examination and does not\nauthorize the hydraulic pressure test. You note that the UN Recommendations on the\nTransport of Dangerous Goods (Model Regulations) allow for use of an acoustic emission\nor an ultrasound test method instead of a hydraulic pressure test upon approval by the\ncompetent authority (re: 6.2.1.5 Note 2).\nYour understanding is correct. As currently required by the HMR under § 180.207( d)(l ), a\nseamless steel UN cylinder with a tensile strength~ 950 MPa must be requalified using\nultrasonic examination in accordance with ISO 6406 (2005). Note that the reference\ncitation in the UN Model Regulations for periodic inspection and testing of a seamless steel\ngas cylinder authorizing the replacement of the hydraulic pressure test with ultrasonic\nexamination in accordance with ISO 6406 has been revised (see 6.2.1.6.1 Note 3). It still\ndoes not include a criterion for required use of ultrasonic examination.\nRegarding requirements under the HMR, in a rulemaking entitled \"Hazardous Materials:\nRequirements for UN Cylinders\" (HM-220E) we originally proposed in new\n§ 180.207(d)(l) that UN cylinders made ofhigh strength steel with tensile strength\n< 9.50 MPa must be requalified in accordance with ISO 6406 and those with tensile\nstrength~ 950 MPa must be requalified as specified in § 180.209 or in accordance with\nprocedures approved by the Associate Administrator. For example, as was proposed, UN\ncylinders constructed to ISO 9809-1 or ISO 9809-2 with a tensile strength~ 950 MPa\ncould be examined by a nondestructive method that is approved by the Associate\nAdministrator (see HM-220E; 70 FR 11774, 11799; March 9, 2005).\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nIn response to this proposal, industry representatives submitted comments requesting\nPHMSA to require all seamless steel UN cylinders to be requalified in accordance with\nISO 6406. The representatives asserted that requalifiers would not be able to determine the\n950 MPa limitation because the tensile strength is not required to be marked on a cylinder.\nWe noted that UN seamless steel cylinders with a tensile strength < 950 MPa will bear an\n\"H\" mark to indicate compatibility of the steel with corrosive or embrittling gases. Thus,\nwe stated that those cylinders bearing an \"H\" mark may be tested hydrostaticly and those\nbearing no \"H\" mark must be requalified by ultrasonic examination in accordance with ISO\n6406 by an approved requalifier. However, the regulatory text adopted in the final rule did\nnot fully reflect this preamble discussion. PHMSA adopted language that required\nrequalification in accordance with ISO 6406 or procedures approved by the Associate\nAdministrator (see HM-220E; 71 FR 33870, 33895; June 12, 2006).\nSubsequently, in a final rule entitled \"Minor Editorial Corrections and Clarifications\" (HM-\n189Z), we revised § 180.207( d)( I) to reflect our intent in the preamble discussion of final\nrule HM-220E. Specifically, we adopted the requirement that UN cylinders with a tensile\nstrength 2: 950 MPa must be requalified using ultrasonic examination in accordance with\nISO 6406 (HM-189Z; 71 FR 54397; September 14, 2006).\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.\nSincerely,\n}Z4r3~\nRobert Benedict\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nUrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nCc:\nSubject:\nSupko, Ben (PHMSA)\nMonday, June 24, 2013 11:15 AM\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nBetts, Charles (PHMSA)\nFW: Requalification of UN Pressure Receptacles\n13-0 13'1\nCarolyn,\nPlease log as an interp.\nThank you,\nBen\nFrom: Cassidy, Duane (PHMSA)\nSent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:12 AM\nTo: Supko, Ben (PHMSA)\nCc: Toughiry, Mark (PHMSA); Cooper, Linda (PHMSA); Paquet, Ryan (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Requalification of UN Pressure Receptacles\nBen,\nPlease see the email below regarding clarification of our regulations regarding the requalification of DOT-approved UN ISO\ncylinders. I believe that this requires an official interpretation from PHMSA. My response is below, stating that I have\nforwarded for an official review of the language. If you are not the correct POC for this, please let me know, or forward\naccordingly to the correct POC.\nThanks, and please let me know if you have any questions/concerns.\nRegards,\nDuane\nFrom: Cassidy, Duane (PHMSA)\nSent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:07 AM\nTo: 'Mark Griffin'; Toughiry, Mark (PHMSA)\nCc: Steve Aderholt; JIM MITCHEL (mitcheng@aol.com); Paquet, Ryan (PHMSA); Cooper, Linda (PHMSA); Mallard, Isreal\n(PHMSA)\nSubject: RE: Requalification of UN Pressure Receptacles\nMark,\nI am forwarding your email to PHMSA's Office of Hazmat Standards to start the Interpretation process to get an official\ninterpretation of this language from PHMSA. That way, this issue is reviewed by PHMSA's Office of Standards, the\nEngineers from our Tech office, as well as by the Transportation Specialists in my office for proper clarification and\nresponse. I'm personally not sure what our official position is on this issue yet, but I agree that the language may need to\nbe clarified.\nRegards,\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nDuane Cassidy\nChief, Pressure Vessels Branch\nApprovals and Permits Division\nOHMS, PHMSA, U.S. DOT\n202-366-5794\nFrom: Mark Griffin [mailto:mgriffin@westernsalesinc.com]\nSent: Monday, June 24, 2013 10:45 AM\nTo: Cassidy, Duane (PHMSA); Toughiry, Mark (PHMSA)\nCc: Steve Aderholt; JIM MITCHEL (mitcheng@aol.com)\nSubject: Requalification of UN Pressure Receptacles\nGentlemen,\nWe are seeking a clarification of 49 CFR 180.207,d,(1). Specifically the following statement from referenced section:\n\"However, UN cylinders with a tensile strength greater than or equal to 950 MPa must (emphasis added) be\nrequalified by ultrasonic examination in accordance with ISO 6406.\"\nAre we to interpret from this that the \"water jacket volumetric expansion test\" may not be utilized on seamless steel gas\ncylinders meeting the above criteria? If so, why? We offer no argument that ultrasonic examination be allowed as an\nalternative test method, but why eliminate the hydraulic test? We recognize that UN Model Regulations in section 6.2.1.5\nstipulate in NOTE 2: 11With the agreement of the competent authority, the hydraulic pressure test of cylinders or tubes\nmay be replaced by an equivalent method based on acoustic emission or ultrasound.\" We have not interpreted the UN\nsection to mean to the exclusion of the hydraulic test, but merely as an approved alternative method. However, the\ncurrent CFR reference definitely seems to exclude the hydraulic test as written.\nWe respectfully await your timely response to this request for clarification as it could possibly pose a significant economic\nimpact on our current and future operations.\nRegards,\nMark Griffin\nMark Griffin\nExecutive Vice President\nP.O. Box 2446; 114 E. 46th; Amarillo, Texas 79105\nPhone: 806- 373-6811; Fax: 806- 373-5971\nemail: mgriffin@westernsalesinc.com\n2\n~------ ~----~------~","truncated":false,"body_characters":7870}