{"operation":"document","citation":"15-0011","title":"CTC Certified Training Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2015-04-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"15-0011 response to CTC Certified Training Company concerning 180.203, 180.211.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0011","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2015/150011.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nSafety Administration\nMr. Darrell K. Garton\nAPR 2 3 2015\nCTC Certified Training Company\n4082 Pioneer Road\nMontrose, CO 81403\nReference No. 15-0011\nDear Mr. Garton:\nThis is in response to your January 15, 2015 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the maintenance and\nrequalification of hermetically sealed fire extinguishers manufactured to meet the\nrequirements of a Department of Transportation (DOT) 4DS specification cylinder and\nseveral Special Permits issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) (e.g., DOT-SP 7026, 7945, 8439, 8495, 10867). We have\nparaphrased your questions and answered them in the order you provided.\nQ1. In the August 25, 2014 e-mail response, PHMSA's Field Services Support Division\nstated that the \"K\" approval of DOT 4DS cylinder requalifiers prescribed in\n§§ 107.805 and 180.211 is required if a rupture disc in a pressure relief device\n(PRD) is replaced on a cylinder rebuild without heat treatment. You ask if the\nperson rebuilding the cylinder is required to have a \"K\" approval before he or she\ncan replace a rupture disc on the hermetically sealed DOT 4DS fire extinguishers\nyou described?\nAl.\nThe answer is no. In the scenario you described, the PRD is removed from the\nDOT 4DS to perform a cylinder requalification. If the cylinder passes the\nrequalification, a new PRD is placed on the cylinder by welding it to the \"boss.\"\nBecause the boss is fusion welded to the cylinder and the PRD is welded to the\nboss, the PRD does not come in direct contact with a pressure part of the cylinder\nand, therefore, its installation is not a \"rebuild\" or \"repair\" as these terms are\ndefined under § 180.203 of the HMR. Persons who replace a rupture disc in a PRD\non a DOT 4DS cylinder must be properly trained to perform this task in\nconformance with 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart H (Training).\nQ2.\nIf the procedure to replace the rupture disc on a DOT 4DS cylinder does fall under\nthe rebuilding requirements specified in § 180.211 and a \"K\" approval is required,\nplease clarify how the approval holder will not be in violation of the HMR when\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nperforming this action since it is impossible to comply simultaneously with the\nrequirements prescribed in §§ 180.211(d)(2)(ii) (visual inspection after removal of a\nnon-pressure component) and 180.211(d)(2)(iv) (welding and inspecting a rebuilt\ncylinder).\nA2.\nAs stated earlier, the procedure to replace a PRD that contains a rupture disc on a\nDOT 4DS cylinder is neither a \"rebuild\" or \"repair\" under the HMR criteria, and is\nnot subject to the \"K\" approval requirements. As a result, the requalifier is required\nto perform only the visual inspection prescribed in § 180.211(d)(2)(ii).\nThank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We may consider clarifying this\nrequirement in a future rulemaking.\nI hope this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nEdmerson\nCTC Certified Training Co.\nDOT. i Sere specification\nMontrose, CO USA 81403\n4082 Pioneer Rd\nCylindes\nTel. (970)240-3391\nemail: dg@ ctseminars.com\nFax (970)240-8146\n15-0011\nJanuary 15, 2015\nCharles Betts, Director\nStandards and Rulemaking\nOffice of Hazardous Materials\n1200 New Jersey Ave, S. E.\nU.S. Department of Transportation- PHMSA\nWashington, D. C., 20590-0081\nDear Mr. Betts,\nrequalification of hermetically sealed fire extinguishers manufactured under DOT-4DS specification and\nThis letter is to request a formal interpretation of 49 CFR 180.211, as it pertains to maintenance and\nrelated Special Permits (such as, but not limited to: SP's 7026, 7945, 8439, 8495, 10867). I would also\nrequest a technical review of this issue prior to response.\nrebuild requirements of 180.211, and therefore requires a \"K\" authorization, because replacement of the\nIt has recently been stated by PHH-40 that the maintenance (\"overhaul\") on these cylinders falls under the\nrupture disc constitutes \"welding on the cylinder\". (See email below from Benjamin Smith).\nrebuild requirements of section 180.211 for the following reasons:\nWhile I am in favor of better control over the procedure, I do not believe this procedure falls under the\n1. The cylinder, itself, is not being altered.\n2. There is no welding performed on the cylinder, itself. The welding is performed on the boss (an\nattachment to the cylinder, per 178.47(e)).\n3.. The boss is specified to be \"weldable stainless steel\". See 178.47(e) and (h)(2)\n4. It would be impossible to perform the tasks required, and still be in compliance with 180.211.\n180.211 (d)(2)(i) and (ii), respectively, require the cylinder to be heat treated, and\nsubjected to volumetric expansion test. These cylinders are not heat treated after the\nthis is why it is removed prior to performing requalification. Therefore, it would be\nprocedure, and most importantly, the rupture disc is not capable of holding test pressure -\nimpossible to be in compliance with 180.211(d)(2)(ii).\nb. 180.211(d)(2)(iv) requires that the material used for the replacement part conforms to the\nspecification, including tensile tests on the replacement part. This is not possible, since\nrequirement, and cannot possibly meet the tensile requirements of the cylinder.\nthe replacement part is a rupture disc, and therefore does not meet the original wall stress\n(Please see attached photo for clarification of weld location.)\nPage 1 of 2\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nQ1: Is such \"K\" approval required for the replacement of the rupture disc on these cylinders?\nQ2: If it is found that the procedure does fall under the rebuild requirements of 180.211, and \"K\" approval\nimpossible to comply with the requirements of 180.211(d)(2)(ii) and 180.211(d)(2)(iv).\nis required, please clarify how the approval holder will not be in violation of the HMR, since it is\nThank you for your consideration of this matter.\nSincerely,\nLan X. Jat\nCTC Certified Training Co.\nPage 2 of 2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nDarrell K. Garton\nSubject:\nFW: Upcoming inspections\nSent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:10 AM\nFrom: benjamin.smith@dot.gov [mailto:benjamin.smith@dot.gov]\nTo: dg@ctcseminars.com; Duane. Cassidy@dot.gov\nSubject: RE: Upcoming inspections\nCc: michael.donahue@dot.gov; icassidy@arrowheadindustrial.com; cmartin@arrowheadindustrial.com\nI have been accepting just the most recent CCM approved rupture disk procedure taken form the CCM, not the entire\nCMM. Again, just showing that the procedure is current. As to accepting a single procedure; I'm counting on the IIA to\nget the most current. I understand that there will be no heat treatment, and this is where the it's a matter of having the\napproved \"K\" CA. If at the time of a fitness review my fitness recommendation fit and I have reviewed and considered\nthe application packet as presented to me, then I'm accepting the procedure that is included in the CCM and if that is\ntheir procedure then it is accepted that that procedure is approved by virtue of the granted CA. I don't want to venture\ninto the realm of special permits, rather I would like to work with in the HMR and cover the issuance of the CA as a\nrebuild of a series 4 cylinder. Again, I don't need a copy of the entire CCM, just the section that covers the steps in\nreplacing the rupture disk. I more than willing to accept an excerpt with a the cover of the CCM attached to it. For me it\ncomes down to the photos and the approved SOP for the task. I need to know it works and that the facility has trained\ntheir employees to the correct procedure. You can check with Chris to see what I has been submitted for PSC so far.\nThis task/action is a rebuild.\nVR, Ben\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nWelding performed\non boss, not on\ncylinder.","truncated":false,"body_characters":7900}