{"operation":"document","citation":"19-0095","title":"Hazmat Resources, Inc — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2019-10-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"19-0095 response to Hazmat Resources, Inc concerning 173.315, 180.413.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-19-0095.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-19-0095.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-19-0095","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/72731/190095.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nOCT 1 7 2019\nDaniel Shelton\nPresident\nHazMat Resources, Inc.\n141 Wendover Drive\nKingsport, 1N 37660\nReference No. 19-0095\nDear Mr. Shelton:\nThis letter is in response to your July 23, 2019, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to cargo tank motor vehicles\n( CTMV s) and work that is performed under the supervision of a Registered Inspector (RI). You\ndescribe a scenario in which an existing MC 331 cargo tank is remounted to a new motor vehicle\nchassis to complete the CTMV. Further, the assembly work includes installation of new piping,\nrear-end protection, and an emergency discharge system. You state that the assembly work is not\nperformed in the presence of an RI, but that inspection and testing is carried out by an RI once\nthe assembly work is complete.\nSpecifically, you ask with regard to§§ 180.413(e)(2) and 173.315(n)(3)(i), whether work that is\ninspected and tested after all assembly work is completed qualifies as \"performed under the\nsupervision\" and \"installed under the supervision\" of an RI, respectively, even if the RI was not\npresent for the assembly work performed.\nThe answer is no. \"Under the supervision of' in the context of§§ 180.413(e)(2) and\n173 .3 l 5(n)(3)(i) means the RI must be present during both performance of assembly work (i.e.,\nmounting of the chassis and installation of the emergency discharge control system) and\ninspection and testing.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\n/~ii~\n/~rKin~ ~I' ;tandards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nJanuary, lkeya CTR (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: RI Question\nFrom: Foster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 7:38 AM\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA) ; January, lkeya CTR (PHMSA) \nSubject: RI Question\nAlice/ lkeya,\nPlease have the following logged in and assigned an lnterp. I will forward some additional background information shortly.\nThanks;\nGlenn\nFrom: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 7:35 AM\nTo: Foster, Glenn (PHMSA) \nCc: Quade, William (PHMSA) ; Bomgardner, Paul (FMCSA) ;\nBabich, Vincent (FMCSA) ; Simmons, James (FMCSA) \nSubject: Fwd: RI Question\nGood morning Glenn -\nCan we please have this logged and assigned for response?\nI suspect there is a history here but hope that we could provide at least some guidance - however\nminimal - working with our motor carrier partners - and we can point to the petition process to fill any\ngap that we cannot extend to by interp. So that Mr. Shelton has a clear path forward should our\nanswer be less specific than he would like it to be.\nShane\nFrom: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA) \nSent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 6:20 AM\nTo: Daniel Shelton \nCc: Quade, William (PHMSA) ; Simmons, James (FMCSA) ; Greene,\nClay (FMCSA) \nSubject: Re: RI Question\n1\n\n<<>>\n\nGood morning Daniel -\nGreat to hear from you.\nLet me review this with the team and get back to you. If we don't have any request on file that is\nactively being worked, would you be comfortable with me using your email as a new incoming of\nrecord?\nThat would allow us to review, provide what clarity we can within the bounds of a clarification letter,\nand ensure we take any next steps as appropriate (to include welcoming a petition etc. for additional\nconsideration if the level of clarity requested exceeds the boundaries of an interp).\nWhile we can't introduce a new definition through a clarification letter, my hopes would be we could\nprovide at least some level of clarity that would be useful to you.\nBest\nShane\nFrom: Daniel Shelton \nSent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 6:53 AM\nTo: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\nCc: Quade, William (PHMSA); Simmons, James (FMCSA); Greene, Clay (FMCSA)\nSubject: FW: RI Question\nGood morning Shane, this is an old question (September 2004) and we (the industry and the regulators) do no have an\nanswer. The competent authority uses the phrase \"under the supervision of a registered inspector\" but has not defined\nwhat the Department means by that phrase. Please provide a definition of what is meant by the term \"under the\nsupervision of a registered inspector\". Please be clear and concise in your response. Ddoes it mean the registered\ninspector can sit in his office but because he is the persons supervisor that means the person is working under the\nsupervision of a registered inspector or does in mean the registered inspector must be present observing the process\n2\n\n<<>>\n\nthe person is using to perform job functions normally associated with a registered inspector or is it something in\nbetween.\nWhat is sad about this situation is it appears this question was asked in 2004, I am not aware of an official response in\nthe last 15 years.\nThank you for a timely reply.\nFrom: Shelton, Danny\nSent: Wednesday, September 1, 2004 8:42 AM\nTo: Mannikko, Michael ; Delorenzo, Joseph \nSubject: RE: RI Question\nGood morning Mike, thanks for the information. I would like for you to consider modifying your request to also include\nwhat information is being included on the specification plate. I have some serious questions as to how they are marking\nthe specification plate, or what information is currently on the specification plate, especially for new tanks, not necessarily\nfor old tanks. Specifically the following areas:\n(c)Specification plate. The following information must be marked on the specification plate in accordance with this section:\n(c)(1) Cargo tank motor vehicle manufacturer (CTMV mfr.).\n(c)(2) Cargo tank motor vehicle certification date (CTMV cert. date).\n(c)(3) Cargo tank manufacturer (CT mfr.).\n(c)(4) Cargo tank date of manufacture (CT date of mfr.), month and year.\nLet me know what you think.\nFrom: Mannikko, Michael\nSent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 8:56 AM\nTo: Shelton, Danny; Delorenzo, Joseph\nSubject: FW: RI Question\nDan,\nBelow is the question I have regarding work to be performed under the supervision of a registered inspector. Joe\nDelorenzo suggested I forward the information to you.\n3\n\n<<>>\n\nThanks\nMike\nA company specializing in the removal and rechassis of MC331 bobtail tanks performs work under contract to a\nmotor carrier who is a registered CT facility. The company performing the assembly work had been assigned a\nCT registration number through FMCSA in April 2004. The assembler has failed to complete the registration\nprocess under Part 107.503 to identify anyone with the company as a registered inspector but continues to\nperform assembly functions.\nThe assembler mounts the cargo tanks on new motor vehicle chassis without welding on the cargo tank head or\nshell. The assembly process includes installation of new piping, rear-end protection and the installation of the\nrequired emergency discharge system for compressed gases in accordance with 173 .3 l 5(n). A finished unit is\nsandblasted and painted and ready for delivery.\nUpon final completion of all assembly work, the motor carrier directs one of their registered inspectors to the\nassembly facility to inspect the finished unit and perform the necessary tests under 49 CFR Part\n180. Regulatory Parts 180 and 173 describe specific functions (180.413( e )(2) and (173.315 (n) (3) (i)) that are\nto be performed under the supervision of a Registered Inspector.\nDoes a registered inspector who inspects the equipment after all assembly work is performed including the\ninstallation of an emergency discharge control systems qualify as \"performed under the supervision of a\nregistered inspector\".\n1) 180.413 (e)(2) In accordance with the original specification for attachment to the chassis or the specification\nfor attachment to the chassis in effect at the time of the mounting, and performed under the supervision of a\nRegistered Inspector if the mounting of a cargo tank on a motor vehicle chassis does not involve welding on the\ncargo tank head or shell or a change or modification of the methods of attachment.\n2) 173.315 (n) (3) (i) states \" ... emergency discharge control equipment must be installed under the\nsupervision of a Registered Inspector\n4\n\n<<>>\n\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nSubject:\nFoster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nTuesday, July 23, 2019 7:39 AM\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA); January, Ikeya CTR (PHMSA)\nFW: RI Question\nAdditional background information from Shelton request.\nFrom: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 7:36 AM\nTo: Foster, Glenn (PHMSA) \nSubject: Fwd: RI Question\nSome more bg\nFrom: Daniel Shelton \nSent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 7:33 AM\nTo: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: RI Question\nShane here is some more communications with RSPA and Susan Gorsky a long time ago. Thanks\nFrom: Shelton, Danny\nSent: Wednesday, September 8, 2004 2:45 PM\nTo: Gorsky, Susan \nSubject: FW: RI Question\nSusan, does the RI have to be present during the time that cargo tanks are re-mounted to a new chassis or can the RI be\n100 miles away and simply come by the facility and sign off on the work?\n----\n·· ···--··· ·······-·········\n-\n··· ---------------·············-----------------------·- · ······-······------·-·\n··\n·\n----- - --\n--\n- -\n···•··•-\n··-·····-······--··-·-··--------- -----------\n··-··--------- - - -- ·----\nFrom: Shelton, Danny\nSent: Friday, September 03, 2004 6:09 AM\nTo: Mannikko, Michael; Delorenzo, Joseph\nCc: Gorsky, Susan ; Staniszewski, Stanley ; Olson, Philip \nSubject: RE: RI Question\nMike, unless I am missing something here, what you are saying is that Arrow tank marks their name on the specification\nplate as the cargo tank motor vehicle manufacturer but leaves the date of certification blank. Does Arrow provide the\ncompany a certificate of compliance with shortages identified and if so how is the issue regarding rear end protection and\na DCE being addressed.\nJoe, this really goes to the heart of the issue in New York where the officer cited the company that re-mounted an existing\ntank, RSPA said they were a manufacturer, and then issued them an exemption. Later RSPA rescinded the interpretation\nsaying they were not a manufacturer. We will move this forward and see what happens but I can tell you that until we\nchange these regulations like we are proposing to do, this is going to be sticky.\nSusan, this is the issue that we talked about regarding the RI not being present when the work is being performed but this\nis really a bigger issue. Will you be back in the office on Tuesday. If so can we set up a meeting on Wednesday of next\nweek to discuss. Mike, if that meeting happens, are you or can you be available. Joe can you be\navailable? Distinguished colleagues from the Office of Technology are you available?\n1\n\n<<>>\n\nLet me know.\n- ----- - -· · ······--•- --\n- --· -\n···· ------·-·········-···\n- --\n--· -· · ------ ---- ·-··· ···········\n----\n·•··· ···-·-·----···-·· -· -\n.\n--······•· ..\n---- - --·-··· - -----·••-- ------\n·\n- ----- --- ---·-·-\nFrom: Mannikko, Michael\nSent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:21 AM\nTo: Shelton, Danny; Delorenzo, Joseph\nSubject: RE: RI Question\n..\n·-·· -··-· ··---\n---------------·· -----\nDan,\nI may have miscommunicated what function the assembly operation is performing. It is my understanding there\nhave been no new vessels mounted on the chassis. The operation removes the bottle from one chassis and\nplaces it on another with new plumbing etc. I am guessing approximately 15-20% of the work involves having\nthe bottle stretched by Arrow Tank. Arrow places the specification plate adjacent to the old plate as required\nwith all the necessary plate markings.\nMike\n--D---Original Message-----\nFrom: Shelton, Danny\nSent: Wed 9/1/2004 9:41 AM\nTo: Mannikko, Michael; Delorenzo, Joseph\nCc:\nSubject: RE: RI Question\nGood morning Mike, thanks for the information. I would like for you to consider modifying your request to also\ninclude what information is being included on the specification plate. I have some serious questions as to how\nthey are marking the specification plate, or what information is currently on the specification plate, especially for\nnew tanks, not necessarily for old tanks. Specifically the following areas:\n(c) Specification plate. The following information must be marked on the specification plate in accordance with this\nsection:\n(c)(1) Cargo tank motor vehicle manufacturer (CTMV mfr.).\n{c){2) Cargo tank motor vehicle certification date (CTMV cert. date).\n(c)(3) Cargo tank manufacturer (CT mfr.).\n(c)(4) Cargo tank date of manufacture (CT date of mfr.), month and year.\nLet me know what you think.\n-·----------• ·····----- --\n·\n------- ----·-·•-- - -------------····-···----••*-••·-··-----··-··-· ·\n-\n·\n---\nFrom: Mannikko, Michael\nSent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 8:56 AM\nTo: Shelton, Danny; Delorenzo, Joseph\nSubject: FW: RI Question\n···\n-····•···---···-·-···-·\n----····-·- -··--··-·------··--- - ·-----···---\nDan,\nBelow is the question I have regarding work to be performed under the supervision of a registered\ninspector. Joe Delorenzo suggested I forward the information to you.\nThanks\nMike\n2\n\n<<>>\n\nA company specializing in the removal and rechassis ofMC331 bobtail tanks performs work under\ncontract to a motor carrier who is a registered CT facility. The company performing the assembly work\nhad been assigned a CT registration number through FMCSA in April 2004. The assembler has failed to\ncomplete the registration process under Part 107.503 to identify anyone with the company as a registered\ninspector but continues to perform assembly functions.\nThe assembler mounts the cargo tanks on new motor vehicle chassis without welding on the cargo tank\nhead or shell. The assembly process includes installation of new piping, rear-end protection and the\ninstallation of the required emergency discharge system for compressed gases in accordance with\n173.315(n). A finished unit is sandblasted and painted and ready for delivery.\nUpon final completion of all assembly work, the motor carrier directs one of their registered inspectors\nto the assembly facility to inspect the finished unit and perform the necessary tests under 49 CFR Part\n180. Regulatory Parts 180 and 173 describe specific functions (180.413(e)(2) and (173.315 (n) (3)\n(i)) that are to be performed under the supervision of a Registered Inspector.\nDoes a registered inspector who inspects the equipment after all assembly work is performed including\nthe installation of an emergency discharge control systems qualify as \"performed under the supervision\nof a registered inspector\". ·\n1) 180.413 (e)(2) In accordance with the original specification for attachment to the chassis or the\nspecification for attachment to the chassis in effect at the time of the mounting, and performed under the\nsupervision of a Registered Inspector if the mounting of a cargo tank on a motor vehicle chassis does not\ninvolve welding on the cargo tank head or shell or a change or modification of the methods of\nattachment.\n2) 173.315 (n) (3) (i) states \" ... emergency discharge control equipment must be installed under the\nsupervision of a Registered Inspector\n-----Original Message-----\n. From: Delorenzo, Joseph\nSent: Thu 8/19/2004 10:16 AM\nTo: Mannikko, Michael\nCc:\nSubject: RI Question\nMike-\nl discussed this question you had about the Rls with HQ & RSPA. RSPA believes that when the\nregulations say under the supervision of an RI that the RI must be there to supervise the work being\nperformed. They cannot act like an Al and just come around when ever they feel like it. I am going to get\na written interp on that because I think it is a good questions we'd like to have in writing.\nLet me know if you need anything else.\nJoe Delorenzo\nHazMat Specialist, Midwest Service Center\n19900 Governors Drive, Suite 210\nOlympia Fields, IL 60461\nPh: 708-283-3572\nFax: 708-283-3579\nE-mail: joseph. delorenzo@fmcsa.dot.gov\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":16350}