{"operation":"document","citation":"01-0179","title":"W. R. Grace Co.-Conn — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2001-10-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"01-0179 response to W. R. Grace Co.-Conn concerning 173.124.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0179.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0179.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0179","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2001/010179.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n• i\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nResearch and\ndministratior\npecial Program\nAUG 27 2001\nCapt. Sam Rogers\nNational Cargo Bureau Inc.\nRef. No. 01-0179\n90 West Street, Suite 2000\nNew York, NY\n10006-1039\nDear Capt. Rogers:\nThis is in response to your letter dated July 11, 2001,\nrequesting clarification of marking reguirements Ior bul!\nackages in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CEI\ntarts 111-180)• Specifically, you ask if a bulk package\ncontaining a hazardous material subject to § 172.203(k) must be\nmarked with the technical name as specified in § 172.301 (b) for a\nnon-bulk package.\nThe answer is no. Ihere is no requirement in the HMR to mark a\nsubject to § 172.203 (k).\ntechnical name on a bulk package containing a hazardous material\nI hope this satisfies your request\nSincerely,\nJohnA! Gale™\nIxansportation Regulation Specialist\nOffice of Hazardous Material\nStandards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\ni, 07/11/2001 02:29 FAX\n401\nNATIONAL\nBAH\n\"GARGO\nBUREAU\n$172.302 (d)\n•ING.\nc-mail: ncbnyce@natcargo.org\nFacsimile Letter Requesting Interpretation\nMarking Bulk\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nDepartment of Transportation, RSPA\ntackaginas\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards (DHM-10)\nWashington, DC\n20590-0001\n01- 0179\nSubject:\nPackage Markings for other than Non-Bulk Packaging when declared\nunder Generic or NOS Proper Shipping Names\nReferences:\n49CFR, 172.302(d), 172.326(a)\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nA iccurring situation exists pertaining to the marking requirements for large and bulk\npackage, which warrants clarification. Within section 172.301 there is the expressed\ngeneral marking requirements for non-bulk packagings. Paragraph (b) of this section\nddresses technical name requirements in association with the proper shipping name\nAs such, technical names where indicated by the symbol \"G\" in column i of the Hazmal\nTable, will require be a required marking on non-bulk packagings.\nIn review of the bulk package marking requirements relating to this same issue, are non\nintermediate, large and bulk packagings pose greater risk than those in non-bulk\nexistent. We feel that this may have been an oversight, in that materials loaded in\npackagings; and would also require the same package markings.\nDo the packages other than non-bulk, require the technical name(s) on the exterior of\nthesc, as part of the proper shipping name?\nPlease provide us with your interpretation in order to avoid any confusion with the\nInternationally accepred methods/recommendations.\n•Best regards,\nSam Rosm\nCapt. Sam Rogers\nMaster Marnier\nSenior Hazmat Coordinator\n90 WEST STREET • SUITE 2000 - NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10006-1039","truncated":false,"body_characters":2664}