Interpretation Response #98-0591 ([Baltimore Cargo Tank Services, Inc.] [Mr. Roy N. Clark])
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name: Baltimore Cargo Tank Services, Inc.
Individual Name: Mr. Roy N. Clark
Location State: MD Country: US
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
MAR 19, 1998
Mr. Roy N. Clark
Baltimore Cargo Tank Services, Inc.
1836-B Chesapeake Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21226
Dear Mr. Clark:
This is in response to your letter requesting clarification of requirements specified in 49 CFR 180.413(d)(I) concerning modifications of a cargo tank motor vehicle. Specifically, you ask if the use of a Design Certifying Engineer (DCE) is required to certify an MC 306 AL cargo tank when double bulkheads and void spaces are added. You also asked what type of documentation would be required.
By definition in §178.320(a), the modified cargo tank would be anew design type by virtue of the fact that your proposed changes would require different engineering drawings and calculations from the original design, see § 178.320(a)(3) under "Design type." While it is true that the addition of heads to create double bulkheads, where the original design provided only single bulkheads, could be expected to reduce the loads imposed on the cargo tank and, thus, would not adversely affect structural integrity, other effects, such as changes in the distribution of forces, also should be evaluated by the DCE.
The Hazardous Materials Regulations prescribes the type of information that must be included in the DCE' s certification but not any particular type of form. The person doing the modification and a Registered Inspector must certify that the cargo tank conforms with § 180.413 and the applicable specification by issuing a supplemental manufacturer's certificate. Once the DCE has approved the modification according to § 180.413, the approval would be applicable to other cargo tanks that are substantially the same as the initial modified cargo tank.
In your letter, you also asked about a possible change to the wording of § 178.345-3(f)(3) to require that any pad used for welding an appurtenance to a cargo tank must be equipped with an opening for drainage purposes. We will consider your comments for possible inclusion in a future rulemaking action.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell, Chief
Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
180.413