{"operation":"document","citation":"04-0051","title":"McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2004-03-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"04-0051 response to McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C concerning 173.28.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0051.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0051.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0051","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2004/040051.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n:\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nResearch and\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nAdministration\nSpecial Programs\nMAR 3 0 2004\nLawrence W. Bierlein\nMcCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C.\nRef. No. 04-0051\nSuite 600\n2175 K Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20037\nDear Mr. Bierlein:\ndrum marked with two thickness marks may be reused under the minimum thickness\nThis responds to your letter of February 19, 2004, requesting clarification as to whether a\nprovisions of 49 CFR 173.28(b).\nwith the thickness of the metal, expressed in millimeters (mm) and rounded to the nearest 0.1\nUnder the provisions of § 178.503(a)(9)(i), a metal drum intended for reuse must be marked\nmm. When the nominal thickness of either head of the drum is thinner than the body, the\n0.9\").\nnominal thickness of the top head, body, and bottom head must be marked (e.g., \"0.9 1.2\nSection 178.503(a)(9)(i) does not provide an example for marking a drum for which the top\nand bottom heads are thicker than the body. It is our opinion that either a single thickness\nbody-head (e.g., \"1.2 0.9 1.2\") should be used.\nmark, representing the minimum thickness of the body (e.g., \"0.9\") or a marking of head-\nUnder the provisions of §173.28(b)(4)(i), a steel drum with a maximum capacity not over\n220 liters must have a minimum thickness of 0.92 mm for reuse. An exception is provided\nfor a drum with minimum thicknesses of 0.82 mm for the body and 1.11 mm for the heads.\nYou describe a situation in which a metal drum is marked by the original manufacturer with\nsv thicknese scripts, to determige. the rim maybe euge under andro ihiom ok is not\ntwo thickness marks, e.g.,\n040051\n113.28\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n8173.28(b)(4)(1). However, the drum may be reused if it meets the minimum thickness\nrequitements: A reconditioner can make this determination by actually measuring the\nthicknesses or by obtaining confirmation of minimum thicknesses from a knowledgeable\nparty such as the drum manufacturer or its customer.\nI trust this satisfics your inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.\nSincerely,\n17, Mozzalle\nEdward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nLAW OFFICES\nLAWRENCE W. BIERLEIN\nDOUGLAS M. CANTER\nMCCARTHY, SWEENEY & HARKAWAY, P.C.\nANDREW P. GOLDSTEIN\nJOHN M. CUTLER, JR.\nSUITE 600\n(202) 775-5574\nFACSIMILE\nSTEVEN J. KALISH\n2175. K STREET, N.W.\nRICHARD D. LIEBERMAN\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20037\nMSH@MSHPC.COM\nE-MAIL\nCHANNING D. STROTHER, JR\n(202) 775-5560\nWEBSITE\nKAREN R. O'BRIEN\nOF COUNSEL\nHTTP://wW.MSHPC.COM\nFebruary 19, 2004\nMazzullo\n8173.28(b)\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nReuse\nDirectoi, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n07-0051\nResearch & Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\nRe:\nInterpretation of Sec. 173.28(b)\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nI would appreciate your concurrence in an interpretation I have provided to the\nmembers of the Reusable Industrial Packaging Association (RIPA).\nSection 173.28(b)(4) limits the reuse of steel drums for hazardous materials\ntransportation to those having specified minimum thicknesses, expressed in nominal\nman. Perily 20 to du no, the able art anay ave a boy o a mr and\nheads of 1.11 mm.\nneeds these thickness marks in order to make that decision. The practice in the industry\nherefore, when a drum has different thicknesses of body and heads, has been to apply\nhree marks, e.g.,\n\"1.2/0.9/1.2.\" This clearly advises the user of the nominal and, through\nuse of the ISO standard, the minimum thicknesses of the top head, the body, and the\nbottom head, respectively. See the attached examples of this practice from publications\nby the Steel Shipping Container Institute (SSCI) and RIPA.\ndrum marked only \"1.2 0.9\" may not be reused or reconditioned for hazardous materials\nI have advised a RIPA member, and he has advised his filler/customer, that a\ntransportation. An incomplete thickness mark like this provides insufficient and perhaps\nmisleading information to the person making this decision whether the nominal thickness\nmark of 1.2 applies to the body, or one or both of the heads. It also does not advise\nwhether, if one of the heads equates to one of the marked thicknesses, he may assume\nthat the heads are identical. A guess is the only option, other than verifying all three\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nthicknesses with a manual or electronic micrometer on each drum. Guessing at hazmat\ndone without destroying the drum; and, use of an electronic micrometer on a production\ncompliance is unacceptable; use of a manual micrometer to verify thicknesses canriot be\nbasis would be unreliable due to the physical characteristics of a used drum.\n\"1.2 0.9\" is not marked in a manner that allows that drum to be reused or reconditioned\nI would appreciate your concurrence in my conclusion that a steel drum marked\nfor hazardous materials transportation. Thank you.\nSincerely,\nLawrence W. Bierlein\nRIPA General Counsel","truncated":false,"body_characters":4924}