{"operation":"document","citation":"16-0042","title":"Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2018-06-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"16-0042 response to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association concerning 178.320, 178.345.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0042.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0042.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0042","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/58476/160042.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\nPipeline and Hazardous\nWashington, DC 20590\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nAdministration\nMaterials SafetyR\nJUN 1 5 2017\nJohn Freiler\nTruck Trailer Manufacturers Association\nSuite 220\n7001 Heritage Village Plaza\nGainesville, VA 20155\nReference No. 16-0042\nDear Mr. Freiler:\nThis letter is in response to your March 10, 2016, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the manufacture of\nDepartment of Transportation (DOT) specification cargo tanks. Specifically, you ask PHMSA to\nreconsider whether accident damage protection devices specified in § 178.345-8 (applicable to\nDOT 406, DOT 407, and DOT 412 cargo tanks) are considered structural support members as\n15-0049.\nopposed to appurtenances as stated in our guidance issued July 17, 2015, under Reference No.\nOur previously issued guidance on this issue remains valid. An accident damage protection\ndevice meets the definition of an appurtenance as defined in §§ 178.320 and 178.345-1. If\nrequired, accident damage protection devices for DOT 406, DOT 407, and DOT 412 cargo tanks\nmust be attached to the cargo tank in accordance with the requirements of § 178.345-8(a)(3). If\naccident damage protection is applied directly to the cargo tank wall, the accident damage\nprotection device must have no lading retention or containment function and provide no\nstructural support to the cargo tank. Accident-induced stresses resulting from the appropriate\naccident damage protection device requirements in combination with the stresses from the cargo\ntank operating at the maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) may not result in a cargo\nfactor of 1.3.\ntank wall stress greater than the ultimate strength of the material of construction using a safety\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nStevens\n178.345\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nAocident clamaxe protecem\nSent:\nFrom:\nGeller, Shelby CTR (PHMSA)\n16-0042\nTo:\nThursday, March 10, 2016 5:05 PN\nSubject:\nlazmat Interps\nAttachments:\nFW: Letter of Interpretation Ref. No: 15-0049\nPHMSA Accident Protection Response.pdf\nDear Shante and Alice,\nForwarded is a request for a formal letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nShelby\nFrom: John Freiler [mailto:john@ttmanet.org]\nSent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:48 PM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter\nSubject: Letter of Interpretation Ref. No: 15-0049\nCc: Staniszewski, Stanley (PHMSA); Pfund, Duane (PHMSA); Carrie Renuart; Jeff Sims; Nancy Livingston\nDear Sirs,\nPlease see the attached letter which asks PHMSA to reconsider the interpretation given in Ref. No: 15-0049\nwhich if allowed to stand would render almost all cargo tanks currently in service as out of compliance with the\nHazardous Materials Regulations.\nPlease feel free to contact me if you have any questions.\nRegards,\nJohn Freiler - Engineering Manager\nTTMA\nTTMAnet.org\nRUCK TRAILER Manufacture\nrillall Associati\nTruck Trailer Manufacturers Association\nSince 1941\n7001 Heritage Village Plaza\nSuite 220\nGainesville, VA 20155-3094\n703-549-3010 - Phone\n- DO NOT RETRACT 15-0049\n- ADD CLARIFY LANGUAGE\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nStevens\n178,345\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\naccident damase potedam.\nFrom:\nGeller, Shelby CTR (PHMSA)\n16-0042\nSent:\nThursday, March 10, 2016 5:05 PM\nTo:\nSubject:\nHazmat Interps\nAttachments:\nFW: Letter of Interpretation Ref. No: 15-0049\nPHMSA Accident Protection Response.pdf\nDear Shante and Alice,\nForwarded is a request for a formal letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nShelby\nFrom: John Freiler [mailto:john@ttmanet.org]\nSent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:48 PM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter\nSubject: Letter of Interpretation Ref. No: 15-0049\nCc: Staniszewski, Stanley (PHMSA); Pfund, Duane (PHMSA); Carrie Renuart; Jeff Sims; Nancy Livingston\nDear Sirs,\nPlease see the attached letter which asks PHMSA to reconsider the interpretation given in Ref. No: 15-0049\nwhich if allowed to stand would render almost all cargo tanks currently in service as out of compliance with the\nHazardous Materials Regulations.\nPlease feel free to contact me if you have any questions.\nRegards,\nJohn Freiler - Engineering Manager\nTTMA\nTRUCK TRAILER Manufacturen\nTTMAnet.org\nSince 1941\nissociatio\nTruck Trailer Manufacturers Association\n7001 Heritage Village Plaza\nSuite 220\nGainesville, VA 20155-3094\n703-549-3010 - Phone\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nheary\n5178.345. 8(a)(1)(3)\nacadent damage protestan\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\n15-0049\nFrom:\nSent:\nCiccarone, Michael CTR (PHMSA)\nTo:\nThursday, March 12, 2015 3:00 PM\nHazmat Interps\nSubject:\nFW: Request for interpretation - Roll Over Guards.\nShante/Alice,\nI'm not seeing this one either.\nFrom: Ciccarone, Michael CTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Hazmat Interps\nSent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:52 PM\nSubject: FW: Request for interpretation - Roll Over Guards.\nShante/Alice,\nPlease submit this for a formal letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nMike\nFrom: D.L. Thompson [mailto:dlthompson@thompsontank.com\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter\nSent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:21 PM\nSubject: Request for interpretation - Roll Over Guards.\nGentlemen\nQ1. Are the Accident Damage Protection Devices or Roll Over Guards specified in DOT 178.348-8 considered to be an\nAppurtenance / Attachment or a Structural Support Member, DOT 178.345-8 (a) (1) (3) requires that the accident\ninduced stresses transferred to the tank shell with the tank operating at the MAWP be considered.\nNote: ASME considers these guards or devices to be an attachment and also requires that these stresses be considered.\nThank you for your consideration.\nDavid I Thompson\nPO Box 790 Lakewood, CA. 90714\nThompson Tank, Inc.\n8029 Phlox Street, Downey, CA 90241\nPhone 562-869-7711 Fax 562-869-7214\nToll Free 800-421-7545\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nSafety Administration\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nWashington, DC 20590\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nMr. David L. Thompson\nJUL 1 7 2015\nThompson Tank, Inc.\nP.O. Box 790\nLakewood, CA 90714-0790\nRef No.: 15-0049\nDear Mr. Thompson:\nThis is a response to your January 15, 2015 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) with regard to the manufacture of\nDOT specification cargo tanks. Specifically you ask if accident damage protection devices\nspecified in § 178.345-8 (applicable to DOT 406, DOT 407 and DOT 412 cargo tanks) are\nconsidered an appurtenance or a structural support member.\nAn accident damage protection device meets the definition of an appurtenance as defined\nin §§ 178.320 and 178.345-1. An accident damage protection device does not itself have\nlading retention or containment function and provides no structural support to the cargo\ntank. Accident damage protection devices if required for DOT 406, DOT 407 and DOT\n412 cargo tanks must be attached to the cargo tank in accordance with the requirements of\n§ 178.345-8(a)(3). Accident induced stresses resulting from the appropriate accident\ndamage protection device requirements in combination with the stresses from the cargo\ntank operating at the MAWP may not result in a cargo tank wall stress greater than the\nultimate strength of the material of construction using a safety factor of 1.3.\nI trust this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact this office.\nSincerely,\nDiane APF1\nDuane A. Pfund\nInternational Standards Coordinator\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nTTMA\nRICK TRAILER Manufacturer\nTank Conference\nASSOCIaTO\nTTMAnet.org\nSince 1941\nJeffrey M. Sims • President\n7001 Heritage Village Plaza • Suite 220 • Gainesville, VA 20155 • 703-549-3010\nMarch 10, 2010\nU.S. DOT\nPHMSA Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nAttn: PHH-10\nEast Building\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nphmsa.hm-infocenter@dot.gov\nRe: Letter of Interpretation Ref No: 15-0049 (Copy Attached)\nDear Sirs,\nWe recently had this interpretation come to our attention. It appears that it was not fully thought through,\nand we would ask that it be reconsidered.\nThe interpretation in question mistakenly qualifies accident damage protection devices as specified in\n§178.345-8 as an appurtenance as defined in §§ 178.320 and 178.345-1. The specific issue we feel is\nincorrect is in the \"provides no structural support to the cargo tank\" finding.\nIt appears that PHMSA failed to consider the full implications of the defining accident damage protection\ndevices as appurtenances. While the letter correctly conveys the requirement to deal with accident induced\nstresses into the cargo tank wall contained in §178.345-8(a)(3), it apparently neglects to deal with the\nadditional requirements for appurtenances that the redefining would cause: §178.345-3(f)(3) requires that\nappurtenances be attached with pads two inches larger than the appurtenance. It is this requirement that is\nthe problem.\nVirtually none of the cargo tanks in service utilize appurtenance-style pads under their accident damage\nprotection devices. Stresses are tracked according to the requirements for accident damage protection\ndevices, but cargo tank designers seldom need a pad or if they do, they don't need one that meets the 2\" set\nback rule. This means that this letter of interpretation, if allowed to stand, would make nearly all cargo tanks\ncurrently in service as out of compliance with the HMR; something we believe was inadvertent.\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nFurther, we find evidence in the code that indicates that accident damage protection devices were not\nintended to be classified as appurtenances: §178.345-3(f)(1) reads \"Structural members, the suspension sub-\nframe, accident protection structures and external circumferential reinforcement devices must be used as\nsites for attachment of appurtenances and other accessories to the cargo tank, when practicable.\" [Emphasis\nadded].\nPlease review the letter and retract it immediately; the definition of appurtenance refers to structural support\nand we believe that accident damage protection devices do provide structural support to the cargo tank for\nspecific emergency loading cases and therefore do not meet the definitions in the code as written.\nSincerely,\nJohn Freiler\nEngineering Manager\nCC:\nDuane A Pfund\n• Stan Staniszewski","truncated":false,"body_characters":10342}