{"operation":"document","citation":"03-0112","title":"Duratek — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2003-06-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"03-0112 response to Duratek concerning 172.310.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0112.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0112.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0112","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2003/030112.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nTransportatio\nS. Departmer\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nJUN - 5 2003\nMs. Kathryn W. Pacha, CET, CIT\nDuratek\nTraining Specialist\nRef. No: 03-0112\n140 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 500\nColumbia, South Carolina 29210\nDear Ms. Pacha:\nThis is in response to your letter dated April 14, 2003 requesting clarification regarding the Class\n7 (radioactive) materials marking requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically you ask whether a shipper is required to affix an\nadditional marking on a package (i.e., \"Type A\" or \"Type B\"), as appropriate in accordance with\n§ 172.310(b), if the manufacturer's marking in accordance with § 178.350(b) is clearly visible.\nIt is not necessary that package marking entries required by Part 172, Subpart D be separate and\ndistinct from those specified in § 178.350(b). A packaging which is properly marked \"USA\nDOT 7A Type A\" would satisfy the requirements of § 172.310(b). Likewise, any proper\nshipping name containing the words \"radioactive material,\" when entered with letters at least ½\ninch high on a package of radioactive materials would also satisfy that portion of the packaging\nmarking requirements of § 178.350(b). A package merely marked \"Type A\" would not meet the\nrequirements of § 178.350(b).\nThe requirement of § 172.310(b) applies not only to DOT 7A packages but to Type B and\nforeign certified packages as well. It should not be considered to mean that the \"USA\" portion of\nthe marking requirement specified in § 178.350(b) may be omitted on purely domestic\nshipments. However, the inscription \"USA\" need not appear twice on a DOT 7A package\ndestined for export.\nI hope this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\nHatle I mitchell\nHattie L. Mitchell, Chief\nRegulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n172,310(6)\n030112\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nBetts\n§172.310 (6)\n3178.350 (6)\nDuratek\nMarking of RAM\n03 -01/2\n140 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 500 • Columbia, South Carolina 29210 • Telephone (800) 925-1592 • Fax (803) 758-1834\nApril 14, 2003\nMr. Richard W. Boyle\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nRoom 8430, Nassif Building\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nDear Mr. Boyle:\nassociated with 49 CFR 172.310(b) versus 178.350(b).\nDuratek Inc. requests an interpretation of the radioactive materials marking requirements\nInterpretation question:\nshipper need to affix an additional marking on the package with \"Type A\" or \"Type B\", as\nIf the manufacturer's marking [per Part 178.350(b)] is clearly visible and in ½\" letters, does the\nappropriate [per Part 172.410(b)]?\nThe following regulatory requirements exist:\n• 178.350(b) requires manufacturers to mark Type A packagings with \"USA DOT 7A Type A\"\nand \"Radioactive Material.\"\n» 172.310(b) requires shippers to mark Type A and Type B packages with \"Type A\" or \"Type\nB\" as appropriate in letters at least ½\" high. A packaging which does not conform to Type\nA or Type B requirements may not be so marked.\nDifferences in interpretation:\nPart 178 is a manufacturer's marking indicating the certification of the packaging. Part 172 is the\n'shipper's marking requirement for offering the package for transportation. Hence, \"A packaging\nwhich does not conform to Type A or Type B requirements may not be so marked.\" Therefore,\nthe requirements in Parts 172 and 173 are not redundant since the shipper's marking indicates\nand use other packagings as Type A.\nhow the shipment is being made. Furthermore, shippers of radioactive material may authorize\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDuratek\n140 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 500 • Columbia, South Carolina 29210 • Telephone (800) 925-1592 • Fax (803) 758-1834\nApril 14, 2003\nMr. Richard W. Boyle\nPage 2\nOr\nPart 178 is a manufacturer's marking indicating certification. Part 172.310(b) is only required\nmarking is clearly visible and in ½\" letters, then the shipper does not need to redundantly mark\nwhen the manufacturer's marking do not provide compliance with this Part. If the manufacturer's\nthe packagc. with \"Type A\" or \"Type B\", as appropriate. The shipper's package documentation\n\"Type B\" requirements\nper Part 173.415(a) is proof the initial packaging and final package conforms to the \"Type A\" or\nIf this is the proper interpretation, then the wording should be more clear in the regulations, such\nno Yeed o remacte ps mage. ir Ty pe A\" ire isi iandi, tetehspe™ higl, the shipper does\nPlease provide a written response with the proper interpretation of these radioactive material\nmarking requirements. If you have any questions, please call me at (803) 758-1870.\nSincerely,\nTraining Specialist\nKathryn W. Pacha, CET, CIT\nc:\nWilliam B. House\nMark S. Lewis\n.....","truncated":false,"body_characters":4728}