{"operation":"document","citation":"23-0014","title":"Fleener Consulting LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2023-08-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"23-0014 response to Fleener Consulting LLC concerning 173.33, 178.345, 178.347, 180.405, 180.407.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-23-0014.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-23-0014.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-23-0014","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/77811/230014.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nAugust 21, 2023\nMr. Arthur Fleener\nFleener Consulting LLC\n3741 Mathews Rd\nAmes, IA 50014\nReference No. 23-0014\nDear Mr. Fleener:\nThis letter is in response to your February 27, 2023, email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the installation of\nU.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 400-series cargo tank pressure relief devices (PRDs)\non Motor Carrier (MC) 300-series cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMVs). Specifically, you state\nthat the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has issued\nconflicting guidance pertaining to the requirements for a DOT 400-series PRD when installed on\nan MC 300-series CMTV. You included a copy of a final rule published by PHMSA on June 18,\n2018—issued under Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0225 (HM-218H)—in response to appeals of a\npreviously published final rule. You interpret this “Correcting Amendments” rulemaking as\nstating that a DOT 400-series PRD can be installed on an MC 300-series tank, but it must meet\nthe venting capacity and set pressure requirements of the original specification of the 300-series\ntank. You also include a PHMSA letter of interpretation (Ref. No. 17-0065) which you interpret\nas stating that a person may install a DOT 400-series PRD on an MC 300-series cargo tank, but\nthe PRD would not be required to function like an MC 300-series PRD.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. You state that your understanding of the June 18, 2018, “Correcting Amendments”\nrulemaking is that a modified PRD on an MC-307 CTMV is required to meet the set\npressure requirements of the original specification, which is to open at not less than the\ncargo tank maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) and not more than 110% of\nthe MAWP, reseating at a pressure of no less than 90% of the MAWP. You have\nincluded preamble language from the June 18, 2018, “Correcting Amendments”\nrulemaking which states that “while the HMR permits DOT 400-series PRDs to be\ninstalled on MC 300-series CTMVs, the PRDs must still meet the venting capacity and\nset pressure requirements of the original specification, in accordance with\n§§ 173.33(d)(3) and 180.407(h)(2).” You ask whether your understanding is accurate.\nA1. Your understanding of the June 18, 2018, “Correcting Amendments” rulemaking is not\ncorrect. The June 18, 2018, “Correcting Amendments” rulemaking did not amend\n§ 180.407(j) or any other regulatory text related to the permitted use of modified PRDs\non MC 300-series CTMVs. However, in an effort to respond to some ongoing questions\naround those provisions, we acknowledge that some incorrect and some imprecise\npreamble language was used in that rulemaking. First, the correct citations in the\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\npreamble language you included should have read, “§§ 173.33(d)(3) and 180.405(h)(3).”\nSecond, the preamble language is imprecise when it states that modified PRDs on MC\n300-series tanks must still meet the venting capacity and set pressure requirements of the\noriginal specification. To be clear, the venting capacity of the original specification must\nbe met as stated in §§ 173.33(d)(3) and 180.405(h)(3), but nowhere in the HMR does it\nrequire the set pressure of the original specification to be met. Finally, as explained in\nletter of interpretation (Ref. No. 17-0065), a modified PRD installed on an MC-307\nCTMV would be required to open between 120% and 132% of the MAWP and reclose at\nnot less than 108% of the MAWP, (see § 180.407(j)(1)(ii)(B)).\nQ2. You ask whether the June 18, 2018, “Correcting Amendments” rulemaking supersedes\nthe PHMSA letter of interpretation (Ref. No. 17-0065) which states that an MC-307 PRD\nmodified to conform to DOT-407 specifications on a 30 psig MAWP CTMV would be\nrequired to open between 36 psig (120% of MAWP) and 39.6 psig (132% of MAWP), as\nprescribed in §§ 180.407(j)(1)(ii)(B), 178.347-4(c), and 178.345-10(d)(1).\nA2. As stated in answer A1, PHMSA acknowledges that there is incorrect and imprecise\npreamble language in the June 18, 2018, rulemaking. Furthermore, the referenced letter\nof interpretation remains accurate (Ref. No. 17-0065).\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nLarson\n23-0014\nFrom: art fleener\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA); DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA); Ciccarone Michael (PHMSA)\nCc: art fleener\nSubject: Request for interp\nDate: Monday, February 27, 2023 6:24:45 PM\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do\nnot click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content\nis safe.\nI would like to request an official interpretation for the below.\nPressure relief devices (PRD) on the old MC 306, 307 and 312 series cargo tanks\ncontinue to be a confusing issue for the industry with lack of consistent guidance from\nthe USDOT.\nThis is an important issue for companies that own, test and inspect these cargo\ntanks. There are thousands of these older tanks still in service and these companies\nhave a lot of liability if they install or pass a cargo tank without the correct PRD. This\nis also an enforcement issue without clear guidance.\nWhen the USDOT made the change from the 300 series cargo tanks to the most\nrecent 400 series there was a desire by the USDOT to require the PRD’s for the 300\nseries cargo tanks to meet the new 400 series surge criteria and being able to reset\nwithout losing more than 1 liter of product. At that time, it was not intended for the\nPRD’s installed on a 300 series cargo tank to function at the higher set to open and\nreset pressures of the 400 series cargo tanks.\nI and others thought that this issue was finally and officially settled with the Federal\nRegister dated 06/18/2018 and we have been following that official guidance.\nThe Federal Register dated 06/18/2018 states: PHMSA has received some inquiries\nregarding the new provisions of 180.407(j) and how they relate to other sections\npertaining to CTMV’s. Therefore, PHMSA seeks to clarify that while 180.407(j)\npermits DOT 400 series pressure relief devices to be installed on MC 300 series\nCTMV’s the pressure relief devices must still meet the venting capacity and set\npressure requirements of the original specification, in accordance with 173.33(d)(3)\nand 180.407(h)(2).\nBased on the above guidance that was published in the Federal Register it clearly\nstates that a 400 series PRD can be installed on a 300 series tank, but it has to meet\nthe venting capacity AND set pressure requirements of the original specification of the\n300 series tank.\nWith MC 307 reclosing pressure relief valves, they must open at not less than the\ncargo tank MAWP and not more than 110% of the cargo tank MAWP and must reseat\nto a leak tight-condition at no less than 90% of the cargo tank MAWP.\nBased on the FR dated 06/18/2018 a MC 307 cargo tank that has had a 407 PRP\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\ninstalled must meet the venting capacity and set pressure requirements of a MC 307.\nA MC 307 cargo tank equipped with a 407 reclosing pressure relief valves, must\nopen at not less than the cargo tank MAWP and not more than 110% of the cargo\ntank MAWP and must reseat to a leak tight-condition at no less than 90% of the cargo\ntank MAWP.\nPHMSA has issued letters of interpretations that were written prior to and contradict\nthe 06/18/2018 FR. In these prior letters of interpretation such as 17-0065, PHMSA\nstates that you can put a 407 PRD on a 307 cargo tank, and that PRD would NOT\nhave to function like a MC 307 PRD. That interp tells us that a MC 307 with a 407\nPRD would be required to open between 120% to 132% of the MC 307 MAWP. This\nis not constant to the most recent guidance of the 06/18/2018 Federal Register.\nCompanies following the 06/18/2018 Federal Register which is the official journal of\nthe federal government are at odds with other companies that are follow older\nPHMSA interp letters that are in conflict, including the interp letter of 17-0065.\nQuestion: Is the Federal Register dated 06/18/2018 where PHMSA clarifies that 400\nseries pressure relief devices can be installed on MC 300 series CTMV’s and the\npressure relief devices must still meet the venting capacity and set pressure\nrequirements of the original specification accurate? Which for a MC 307 cargo tank\nwould require the PRD to open at not less than the cargo tank MAWP and not more\nthan 110% of the cargo tank MAWP and must reseat to a leak tight-condition at no\nless than 90% of the cargo tank MAWP, no matter the PRD?\nQuestion: Does the Federal Register dated 06/18/2018 providing guidance on the\n300 series cargo tanks PRD’s supersede prior PHMSA interp letters that are still\navailable on PHMSA website and that are in conflict?\nThank you\nArt Fleener\nFleener Consulting LLC","truncated":false,"body_characters":9058}