{"operation":"document","citation":"24-0033R","title":"Moog, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2025-07-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"24-0033R response to Moog, Inc. concerning 180.203, 180.205, 180.215.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0033r.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0033r.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0033r","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2025-07/240033R_0.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nJuly , 2025\nSam Browning\nMoog, Inc.\nAshchurch Parkway\nTewkesbury\nGloucestershire\nGL20 8TU\nUnited Kingdom\nReference No. 24-0033R\nDear Mr. Browning:\nThis letter in response to your original April 2 email based on your\nfollow-up September 4, 2024 email, and your subsequent conversation with a member of my\nstaff requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n171-180) applicable to cylinder condemnation. Specifically, you have questions about the process\nfor condemning a cylinder consistent with the requirement outlined in 49 CFR § 180.205(j)(1)(x)\nwhen the owner of the cylinder knows that its service life has expired.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. Must a person (i.e., a cylinder owner) have any part of a “requalification”—as defined in\n49 CFR § 180.203—performed when the cylinder owner knows that the authorized\nservice life of a cylinder such that it is now subject to condemnation consistent with\n§ 180.205(j)(1)(x)?\nA1. No. In this instance, when a cylinder owner knows a cylinder is not suitable for continued\nservice because it has reached the end of its service life it does not need to be subjected to\nrequalification provisions. The term “requalification”—as defined in § 180.203—means\nthe completion of a visual inspection and/or the test(s) required to be performed on a\ncylinder to determine its suitability for continued service.\nQ2. In the instance of a cylinder owner knowing a cylinder is not suitable for continued\nservice because it has reached the end of its service life and the owner uses the services\nof a cylinder requalifier to condemn the cylinder in accordance with § 180.205(j), must a\n\n<<>>\n\nrequalifier complete any part of recordkeeping found in §§ 180.215(b) introductory text\nor 180.215(b)(2), respectively?\nA2. No. A cylinder known to have an expired service life does not need to undergo formal\nrequalification including maintenance of a record because the owner has already\ndetermined the cylinder is no longer suitable for continued service past its authorized\nservice life. The requalifier needs only to adhere to the requirements found in\n§ 180.205(j)(2).\nQ3. When is a requalification record of condemnation of a cylinder necessary for a cylinder\npast its specified service life?\nA3. A record of condemnation is necessary if during performance of a requalification, it is\ndetermined by the requalifier that a cylinder’s authorized service life has expired.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nDirk Der Kinderen\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nBaker, Y.\n24-0033R\nFrom: Browning, Sam\nTo: Cc: Date: INFOCNTR (PHMSA); Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nBaker, Yul (PHMSA); DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA); Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nSubject: RE: Interpretation Final Response\nWednesday, September 4, 2024 4:35:50 AM\nAttachments: image001.png\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.\nDear Alice,\nPlease see an addition in red to my previous email.\nRegarding the attached response to my query,\nIf we were to completely ignore my reference to section “49 CFR 180.205(f) Visual inspection”\nCan you please clarify that if a cylinder is to be condemned due to section § 180.205(j)(1)(x), there is\nno need to conduct any part of a “Requalification” as defined in 49 CFR 180.203 due to the cylinder\nbeing determined unsuitable for use prior to any part of a requalification taking place.\nCan you also confirm there is no need to complete any part of section 180.215(b) or 180.215(b)(2).\nIn particular, the need to keep a record of that cylinder’s condemnation.\nCan you confirm that the only time it is needed to complete a record of condemnation is when a\ncylinder fails a “visual inspection/pressure test” (a cylinder being out of service life does not\nconstitute as a failed visual inspection), thus resulting in its condemnation. This should then be\ncaptured on the requalification record. (as expressed in 49 CFR 180.215(b)(2) “disposition, with\nreason for any repeated test, rejection or condemnation”)\nKind regards\nSam Browning | Product Engineer\nMobile +44 7475 140 111\ne-mail sbrowning@moog.com Ashchurch, Tewkesbury\nGloucestershire, United Kingdom\nwww.moog.com\nFrom: Browning, Sam\nSent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 1:58 PM\nTo: Infocntr@dot.gov; Dodd, Alice (PHMSA) \nCc: Baker, Yul (PHMSA) ; DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA)\n\n<<>>\n\n; Dodd, Alice (PHMSA) \nSubject: RE: Interpretation Final Response\nDear Alice,\nRegarding the attached response to my query,\nIf we were to completely ignore my reference to section “49 CFR 180.205(f) Visual inspection”\nCan you please clarify that if a cylinder is to be condemned due to section § 180.205(j)(1)(x), there is\nstill no need to complete any part of section 180.215(b)(1) or 180.215(b)(2). In particular, the need\nto keep a record of that cylinder’s condemnation.\nCan you confirm that the only time it is needed to complete a record of condemnation is when a\ncylinder fails a visual inspection/pressure test, thus resulting in its condemnation. This should then\nbe captured on the requalification record. (as expressed in 49 CFR 180.215(b)(2) “disposition, with\nreason for any repeated test, rejection or condemnation”)\nKind regards\nSam Browning | Product Engineer\nMobile +44 7475 140 111\ne-mail sbrowning@moog.com Ashchurch, Tewkesbury\nGloucestershire, United Kingdom\nwww.moog.com\n\n<<>>\n\nBaker\n24-0033\nFrom: Approvals (PHMSA)\nTo: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: CFR49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-180 Cylinder Condemnation Query\nDate: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 8:20:57 AM\nAttachments: image001.png\nimage003.png\nDuane M. Cassidy\nChief, Pressure Vessels Branch (PHH-25)\nSciences and Engineering Division\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nUS Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nE21-301, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington, DC 20590\nOffice/Mobile: 202.596.0583\nPHMSA Home | LinkedIn | Twitter | HAZMAT | OPS\nFrom: Browning, Sam \nSent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 8:00 AM\nTo: Approvals (PHMSA) \nSubject: RE: CFR49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-180 Cylinder Condemnation Query\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.\nDear whom it may concern,\nPlease could you comment on the below?\nSam Browning | Product Engineer\nMobile +44 7475 140 111\ne-mail sbrowning@moog.com Ashchurch, Tewkesbury\nGloucestershire, United Kingdom\nwww.moog.com\nFrom: Browning, Sam\nSent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:29 AM\nTo: Approvals (PHMSA) \nSubject: RE: CFR49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-180 Cylinder Condemnation Query\n\n<<>>\n\nSubject: CFR49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-180 Cylinder Condemnation Query\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.\nDear whom it may concern,\nI write to you from Moog Aircraft Control components in Tewkesbury, United Kingdom.\nWe have the capability of hydrostatic testing a selection of cylinders for requalification.\nI Write to you regarding a query around the condemnation of cylinders due to service life expiry.\nCan you confirm,\nwhen a cylinder is to be condemned due to meeting the criteria in section 49\nCFR 180.205(i)(1)(x) “For a cylinder with a specified service life, its\nauthorized service life has expired.”\nCylinder condemnation.\n49 CFR 180.205(i)\n(1) A cylinder must be condemned when—\n(i) The cylinder meets a condition for condemnation under the visual inspection\nrequirements of paragraph (f) of this section.\n(ii) The cylinder leaks through its wall.\n(iii) Evidence of cracking exists to the extent that the cylinder is likely to be\nweakened appreciably.\n(iv) For a DOT specification cylinder, other than a DOT 4E aluminum cylinder or\na special permit cylinder, permanent expansion exceeds 10 percent of total\nexpansion.\n(v) For a DOT 3HT cylinder—\n(A) The pressure test yields an elastic expansion exceeding the marked\nrejection elastic expansion (REE) value.\n(B) The cylinder shows evidence of denting or bulging.\n(C) The cylinder bears a manufacture or an original test date older than\n\n<<>>\n\ntwenty-four years or after 4380 pressurizations, whichever occurs first. If a\ncylinder is refilled, on average, more than once every other day, an accurate\nrecord of the number of rechargings must be maintained by the cylinder\nowner or the owner's agent.\n(vi) For a DOT 4E aluminum cylinder, permanent expansion exceeds 12 percent\nof total expansion.\n(vii) For a DOT special permit cylinder, permanent expansion exceeds the limit\nin the applicable special permit, or the cylinder meets another criterion for\ncondemnation in the applicable special permit.\n(viii) For an aluminum or an aluminum-lined composite special permit cylinder,\nthe cylinder is known to have been or shows evidence of having been\noverheated. Arc burns must be considered evidence of overheating.\n(ix) The cylinder is known to have been or shows evidence of having been over-\npressurized.\n(x) For a cylinder with a specified service life, its authorized service life has\nexpired.\n(xi) The cylinder has been stamped on the sidewall, except as provided in part 178 of\nthis subchapter.\nThis means it does NOT need to be visually inspected as per 49 CFR\n180.205(f)\nVisual inspection. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, each time a cylinder is pressure tested, it must be\ngiven an internal and external visual inspection.\n(1) The visual inspection must be performed in accordance with the following CGA\nPamphlets: C–6 for steel and nickel cylinders (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter);\nC–6.1 for seamless aluminum cylinders (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter); C–6.2\nfor fiber reinforced composite special permit cylinders (IBR, see § 171.7 of this\nsubchapter); C–6.3 for low pressure aluminum cylinders (IBR, see § 171.7 of this\nsubchapter); C–8 for DOT 3HT cylinders (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter); and C–\n13 for DOT 8 series cylinders (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter).\n(2) For each cylinder with a coating or attachments that would inhibit inspection of\nthe cylinder, the coating or attachments must be removed before performing the\nvisual inspection.\n(3) Each cylinder subject to visual inspection must be approved, rejected, or\ncondemned according to the criteria in the applicable CGA pamphlet.\n(4) In addition to other requirements prescribed in this paragraph (f), each\nspecification cylinder manufactured of aluminum alloy 6351–T6 and used in self-\ncontained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA), self-contained breathing\napparatus (SCBA), or oxygen service must be inspected for sustained load cracking\nin accordance with Appendix C of this part at the first scheduled 5-year\nrequalification period after January 1, 2007, and every five years thereafter.\n(5) Except in association with an authorized repair, removal of wall thickness via\n\n<<>>\n\ngrinding, sanding or other means is not permitted. Removal of paint or loose\nmaterial to prepare the cylinder for inspection is permitted (e.g., shot blasting).\n(6) Chasing of cylinder threads to clean them is permitted, but removal of metal\nmust not occur. Re-tapping of cylinder threads is not permitted, except by the\noriginal manufacturer, as provided in § 180.212.\nThus, meaning it does NOT need a “Pressure test and visual inspection\nrecord “49 CFR 180.215(b)(2)” to be completed as a visual inspection or\npressure Test isn’t being undertaken.\nFrom my interpretation if we have a cylinder that is known to be out of\nservice life then we are required to complete section “49 CFR 180.205(i)(2)”\nONLY.\nWhen a cylinder must be condemned, the requalifier must—\n(i) Communicate condemnation of the cylinder as follows:\n(A) Stamp a series of Xs over the DOT-specification number and the marked\npressure or stamp “CONDEMNED” on the shoulder, top head, or neck using a\nsteel stamp;\n(B) For composite cylinders, securely affix to the cylinder a label with the word\n“CONDEMNED” overcoated with epoxy near, but not obscuring, the original\ncylinder manufacturer's label; or\n(C) As an alternative to the stamping or labeling as described in this paragraph\n(i)(2), at the direction of the owner, the requalifier may render the cylinder\nincapable of holding pressure; and\n(ii) Notify the cylinder owner, in writing, that the cylinder is condemned and may\nnot be filled with hazardous material and offered for transportation in commerce\nwhere use of a specification packaging is required.\n(3) No person may remove, obliterate, or alter the required condemnation\ncommunication of paragraph (i)(2) of this section.\nI look forward to hearing from you.\nKind regards\nSam Browning | Product Engineer\nMobile +44 7475 140 111\ne-mail sbrowning@moog.com Ashchurch, Tewkesbury\nGloucestershire, United Kingdom\nwww.moog.com\nConfidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is\naddressed and may contain confidential and/or proprietary information belonging to the sender. If you are not the intended\nrecipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, use, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the\ncontents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.\n\n<<>>\n\nConfidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is\naddressed and may contain confidential and/or proprietary information belonging to the sender. If you are not the intended\nrecipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, use, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the\ncontents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.\nConfidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is\naddressed and may contain confidential and/or proprietary information belonging to the sender. If you are not the intended\nrecipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, use, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the\ncontents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.","truncated":false,"body_characters":15255}