{"operation":"document","citation":"18-0036","title":"Association of American Railroads — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2018-09-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"18-0036 response to Association of American Railroads concerning 179.18, 179.202, 180.509.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0036.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0036.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0036","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/68986/180036.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nSEP 1 8 2018\nKenneth B. Dorsey\nAssociation of American Railroads\n425 Third Street, SW\nWashington, DC 20024\nReference No. 18-0036\nDear Mr. Dorsey:\nThis letter is in response to your March 13, 2018, letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to specifications for DOT-111\nand DOT-117 series tank cars.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ 1. You ask whether a DOT-111 tank car manufactured after October 1, 2015, is eligible to\nbe retrofitted to DOT-11 7R or DOT-11 7P specification.\nAl. The answer is no. In accordance with§ 174.3 lO(a)( 4), a newly manufactured tank car\nused to transport flammable liquids must be built to the new DOT-117 or DOT-l 17P\nspecifications.\nQ2. Certain jacketed DOT-111 tank cars are equipped with fiberglass insulation, which is not\nan approved thermal protection system, in accordance with § 179 .18( c ). You ask whether\nthese tank cars being retrofitted to the DOT-11 7 specification require documentation of a\nworst-case thermal analysis for crude oil and ethanol to show that they are capable of\nachieving the performance standard in § 179 .18( a).\nA2. The answer is yes. When converting jacketed DOT-111 tank cars equipped with a\nthermal protection system not on the verification list, a thermal analysis must be provided\nthat demonstrates the tank car can achieve the performance standard in§ 179.18(a). In\naccordance with§ 179.202-12(a), only cars that show they can meet this performance\nstandard will be eligible for conversion to DOT-11 7P specification and need additional\napproval from Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer, Federal\nRailroad Administration (FRA).\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3. You ask if the minimum plate thickness requirements for DOT-117R specification can be\nbased on the minimum plate thickness requirement at the time of original construction.\nA3. The answer is yes. In accordance with§ 179.202-13(c), the minimum plate thickness for\nall tank cars manufactured to the DOT-117R is 7 /16 of an inch. However, DOT-111 tank\ncars manufactured to the Association of American Railroads CPC-1232 standard have a\nminimum plate thickness of½ an inch. Additionally, when calculating minimum\nallowable tank shell thickness in accordance with § 180.509(f), the original plate\nthickness at time of construction must be used for these calculations.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\n. 1/42 . ~\nrkDer~eg\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n~l,CCQW\\l~\n1ant-c~\nl~ - CD¾\nJanuary, lkeya CTR (PHMSA)\nFrom: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\nSent: To: Cc:\nSubject:\nTuesday, March 13, 2018 4:03 PM\nJanuary, lkeya CTR (PHMSA); Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nDerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA); Nickels, Matthew (PHMSA); Foster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nFW: Request for Interpretation 49 CFR part 179.202\nAttachments: 179.202 Request.pdf\nColleagues\nPlease log this for processing as an interp.\nThanks\nFrom: Dorsey, Ken <kdorsey@aar.org>\nSent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:39:51 PM\nTo: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\nSubject: Request for Interpretation 49 CFR part 179.202\nMr. Kelley\nPlease find the attached request for interpretation of 49 CFR part 179.202. The AAR is currently fielding requests on\nvarious aspects concerning DOT 117 class tank cars and is requesting the DOT interpretation of the regulations so that\nwe can proceed.\nKenneth Dorsey\nExecutive Director of Tank Car Safety\nAssociation of American Railroads\n202-639-2262\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n~ l ASSOCIATION OF\nAMERICAN RAILROADS\nSafety and Operations\nKenneth B. Dorsey\nExecutive Director Tank Car Safety\nMr. Shane R. Kelley\nDirector, Office of Standards and Rulemaking\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nUnited States Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nEast Building, PHH-10\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nSubject: Request for Interpretation\nDear Mr. Kelley:\nAAR is seeking clarification of three issues related to the 49 CFR Part 179, Subpart D\nspecifications for DOT-111 and DOT-117 tank cars. We respectfully request that you\nexpedite your response to the extent practicable.\nThe first question relates to time limitations for conversions of DOT-111 tank cars into\nDOT-117R tank cars. AAR has received approval requests for conversion of DOT-111\ntank cars constructed after October 1, 2015 to DOT-117R cars. It seems apparent that\nsuch requests circumvent DOT's regulatory intent in establishing a new, safer standard\nTitle 49 CFR 174.310(a)(4) provides that:\n\"[a)fter October 1, 2015, tank cars manufactured for use in a HHFT must meet: (i)\nDOT Specification 117, or 117P performance standard in part 179, subpart D of\nthis subchapter; or (ii) An authorized tank specification as specified in part 173,\nsubpart F of this subchapter.\nTo allow manufacturers to build new DOT-111 cars and convert them to DOT-117Rs\nwould provide a disincentive to the adoption and manufacture of the DOT-117 standard\ncars, which provide superior safety benefits.\n1. AAR requests an interpretation on whether DOT-111 cars built after\nOctober 1, 2015, are ineligible to be retrofitted to DOT-117R or P class. We\nexpect that the answer is yes, which would also provide regulatory\nconsistency with Canadian standards.2\n1 See TP-14877 2015, 8.3.25.2eii (available at\n)\n425 Third Street, SW I Washington, DC 20024 I P (202) 639-2262 I F (202) 639-2930 I\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nf·' d 9 C 1 2\nNext, AAR is also seeking guidance regarding documentation to approve as DOT-117R\ntank cars built as jacketed DOT-111 cars and equipped with only fiberglass insulation.\nUnder 49 CFR 179.4(a), AAR's Executive Director of Tank Car Safety is charged with\ngranting approval for the alteration of DOT specification tank cars. The thermal\nprotection requirements for DOT-117R are set forth in 49 CFR 179.202-13(e), which\nrequires that tank cars employ a thermal protection system that complies with 49 CFR §\n179.18. The 179.18 section establishes a requirement that thermal protection systems\nnot included on a list referenced in 179.1 B(c) must provide documentation of a thermal\nanalysis to show that they are capable of achieving a performance standard. In the\ncase of DOT-117R conversions for jacketed cars equipped with fiberglass insulation,\nthey met the standards when they were built to the DOT-111 specification, but the\nthermal protection system is not on the 49 CFR 179.18(c) approved list.\nAdditionally, Transport Canada (TC) guidance for previously jacketed DOT-111 class\ncars equipped with only fiberglass insulation indicates that only cars meeting the\nrequirements of CPC-1232 will be considered for a temporary certificate. AAR requests\nthat DOT harmonize the domestic requirements with those of TC in-order to avoid\ndisrupting international commerce.\n2. Accordingly, for conversions of jacketed DOT-111 tank cars equipped with\nonly fiberglass insulation to DOT-117 specification cars, are applicants\nrequired to provide documentation of a worst case thermal analysis for\ncrude oil and ethanol to show that they are capable of achieving the 49 CFR\n179.1 B(a) performance standard?\nFinally, AAR is requesting an interpretation on how to determine the allowable tank\nplate thickness standard for a DOT-117 class car. AAR is seeking clarification that DOT\nconsiders the plate thickness allowed by the specification to be based on the minimum\nplate thickness for the type of car at the time of original construction. For example, a\nDOT 117R converted from non-jacketed CPC-1232 car would have a required base\nthickness of½ inch rather than 7/16 inch, which is the published DOT-117R minimum\nshell thickness in general (179.202-13c).\n3. For tank car conversions to a DOT-117R, does DOT consider the plate\nthickness allowed by the specification to be based on the minimum plate\nthickness for the type of car at the time of original construction?\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nPage 1 3\nThank you very much for your prompt attention to these matters. Please do not hesitate\nto contact me with any questions at 202-639-2262.\nSincerely,\nKenneth B. Dorsey\nExecutive Director of Tank Car Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8332}