{"operation":"document","citation":"15-0117","title":"Intellectual Criminal Investigation Squad — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2016-06-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"15-0117 response to Intellectual Criminal Investigation Squad concerning 178.37.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0117.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0117.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0117","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/150117.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nMaterials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nAdministration\nJUN 0 8 2016\nInvestigator JI-hoon Chang\nIntellectual Criminal Investigation Squad\nKorea National Police\nKorea\nRef No.: 15-0117\nDear Mr. Chang:\nThis letter is a follow-up to a response you received from the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA; Reference Number 15-0089) on May 13, 2015 and\nto your June 16, 2015 email inquiry and subsequent correspondence with an Investigator of\nPHMSA's Field Operations Division requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to Department of Transportation\n(DOT) Specification 3AAX seamless steel cylinders. Your questions pertain to the specific\noperations of a company, NK Company LTD, and have been paraphrased and answered as\nfollows:\nQ1.\nIs adding thickness around the neck of a DOT-AAX seamless steel cylinder to\ncorrect dimension irregularities considered \"welding\" or \"brazing\" for the purposes of\n$ 178.37(e)(1)?\nAl.\nThe answer is yes, adding thickness around the neck of a DOT-AAX seamless steel\ncylinder is considered welding or brazing. Please be advised that as specified in\n§ 178.37(e) of the HMR, welding or brazing for any purpose whatsoever is prohibited\nexcept for: (1) the attachment of neckrings and footrings which are non-pressure parts,\nand only to the tops and bottoms of cylinders having a service pressure of 500 psig or\nless; and (2) as permitted in paragraph (d) (Manufacture) of\n§ 178.37. The neck of a cylinder is considered a pressure part.\nQ2.\nWhat criteria are used to determine whether a cylinder neckring or footring is a\n\"pressure part\" or a \"non-pressure part\" for the purposes of § 178.37(e)(1)?\nA2.\nNeckrings and footrings are non-pressure parts. For the purposes of § 178.37(e)(1), a\nneckring or footring can only be attached by welding to the top or bottom exterior of a\ncylinder with a service pressure of 500 psig or less. For the purposes of\n§ 178.37(e)(1), any portion of the cylinder itself is considered a pressure part.\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3.\nIs PHMSA aware of any instances of failure as a result of welding around the neck of\na DOT specification 3AAX cylinder?\nA3.\nNo, we are not aware of any instances of failure as a result of welding around the neck\nof a DOT specification 3AAX cylinder.\nQ4.\nFor the purposes of § 178.37(d) (Manufacture), does the phrase \"... the surface may be\nmachined or otherwise treated to eliminate these defects.\" include welding?\nA4.\nNo, it does not include welding to eliminate a defect. For the purposes of\n§ 178.37(d), welding refers to an end closure in the finished cylinder that is welded by\nspinning in the manufacturing process.\nQ5.\nAre there similar issues with welding on other DOT cylinder specifications?\nAS.\nThe answer is yes. Each DOT cylinder specification's welding procedures are\nprescribed in Subpart C of Part 178. None of those specifications authorize welding to\ncorrect defects in the pre- or post-manufacturing process. This requirement is\nnecessary to prevent a cylinder from rupturing, resulting in extensive property\ndamage, serious injury, or death.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nAlenn Foste\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nStevens\n8178.37\nCylinders\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\n15-0117\nSent:\nFrom:\nFoster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nTo:\nTuesday, June 16, 2015 12:20 PM\nCc:\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA); Goodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nStevens, Michael (PHMSA); Benedict, Robert (PHMSA); Betts, Charles (PHMSA); Foster,\nSubject:\nGlenn (PHMSA); Kelley, Shane (PHMSA); Pfund, Duane (PHMSA); Supko, Ben (PHMSA)\nFW: I need your help :)\nLadies,\nPlease check the below in as a request for Letter of Interpretation and assign to Michael.\nThanks,\nGlenn\nFrom: Smith, Chevella (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:17 AM\nTo: Foster, Glenn (PHMSA); Raksnis, Richard (PHMSA)\nCc: Cassidy, Duane (PHMSA); Taisee, Kimberly (PHMSA); Paquet, Ryan (PHMSA); Schoonover, William (PHMSA);\n(PHMSA); Freeman, Cheryl (PHMSA)\nCharnota, April (PHMSA); Espinoza, Jaime (PHMSA); Sorah, Jay (PHMSA); Generette, Aris (PHMSA); Shafkey, Refaat\nSubject: RE: I need your help :)\nThanks Glenn\nChevella Smith\nCompliance Investigator\nPHMSA/SWR\n----Original Message-----\nFrom: Foster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 10:49 AM Eastern Standard Time\nTo: Smith, Chevella (PHMSA); Raksnis, Richard (PHMSA)\nCe: Cassidy, Duane (PHMSA); Taisee, Kimberly (PHMSA); Paquet, Ryan (PHMSA); Schoonover, William\n(PHMSA); Charnota, April (PHMSA); Espinoza, Jaime (PHMSA); Sorah, Jay (PHMSA); Generette, Aris\n(PHMSA); Shafkey, Refaat (PHMSA); Freeman, Cheryl (PHMSA)\nSubject: RE: I need your help :)\nHello Chevella,\nWe will treat the additional questions as a new request for a letter of Interpretation that references the previous 15-\n0089 Interp. I will advise with a completion estimate and let you know if there are any additional questions or concerns\nonce I have spoken with Tech.\nThanks,\nGlenn\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nFrom: Smith, Chevella (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 9:22 AM\nTo: Raksnis, Richard (PHMSA); Foster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nCc: Cassidy, Duane (PHMSA); Taisee, Kimberly (PHMSA); Paquet, Ryan (PHMSA); Schoonover, William (PHMSA);\n(PHMSA)\nCharnota, Aprii (PHMSA); Espinoza, Jaime (PHMSA); Sorah, Jay (PHMSA); Generette, Aris (PHMSA); Shafkey, Refaat\nSubject: FW: I need your help :)\nGood morning,\nThe email below was received from Korea National Police. They have additional questions regarding welded\ncylinders performed by NK Co Ltd and is requesting:\n1. DOT official document(Ref No. : 15-0089) be redrafted and sent again via Interpol.\n2. Provide letter of interpretation for questions 1-5; address to Korean National Police via Interpol\nLet me know at your earliest when the request can be completed and if you have additional questions or\nconcerns.\nThanks!\nChevella Smith\nCompliance Investigator\nPHMSA/SWR\n-----Original Message-.---\nFrom: 37 [changii82@police.go.kr]\nSent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 05:39 AM Eastern Standard Time\nTo: Smith, Chevella (PHMSA); Charnota, April (PHMSA)\nSubject: I need your help :)\nDear. Ms Smith,\nKorea National Police has been received official documentation from DOT regarding NK.\nHowever, we have additional inquiry to this issue, therefore sending this below question to DOT again via Interpol.\nPlease provided your answers on DOT official document with its logo on.\nPlease understand that Korea National Police has their own policy for procedures, to this end, we have to received\nthe DOT official documentation via Interpol.\nKorea National Police will fully cooperated with DOT regarding DOT's NK investigation, so then DOT\ninvestigation on NK gets over soon.\n* Please provided DOT official document(Ref No. : 15-0089) again via Interpol, which is the documentation that\nKorea National Police has received on May 13th, 2015.\n<Question>\nthere a case similar to this explanation?\nQ1. Can it be determined as 'welding', adding thickness around neck to 'correct' dimension, not to fix 'crack'? Was\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\npart'?\nQ2. What is the logical base for determining neck-ring as 'not pressurized par', and around-neck as 'pressurized\nQ3. Is there any case of problem from welding around neck? If it happened, what was the contents of the case?\nto eliminate these defects' referred in the section of '§178.37(d) Manufacture', what are specific examples\nQ4. In the sentence of 'If not originally free from such defects, the surface may be machined or otherwise treated\ncorrespond to 'If not originally free from such defects', and 'machined or otherwise treated'? Can 'otherwise\ntreated' be regarded as welding?\nknow the specific example.\nQ5. Is there any similar cylinder specification to be an issue for the 'welding' perviously? If so, then please let us\nWould you please let us allow to provided your contact information(email/tel(713-272-2820) to Interpol, so they\ncan communicate directly to you?\nIf this is allowable, then it would be a lot of support to Interpol to find out relevant personnel at DOT.\nJI-hoon Chang\nBest regards,\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":8234}