{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0115","title":"Mr. Roy A. Parker, Ph.D. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-05-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0115 concerning 172.310.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0115.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0115.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0115","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080115.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nMAY 2 0 a08\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashinglon, D.C. 20590\nMr. Roy A. Parker, Ph.D.\nRadiation Physics Consultant\n506 1 Abelia Drive\nBaton Rouge, LA 70808\nRef. No.: 08-01 15\nDear Mr. Parker:\nThis is in response to your April 24, 2008 inquiry requesting clarification regarding the Class\n7 (radioactive) materials marking requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 17 1 - 1 80). Specifically you ask whether a shipper is required to mark a\npackage in accordance with 9 172.3 10(b) if the package specification marking required by\n5 178.350 is already present.\nIt is not necessary that package marking entries required by Part 172, Subpart D be separate\nand distinct fiom those specified in 5 178.350(c). A packaging properly marked \"USA DOT\n7A Type A\" in accordance with $5 178.3 and 178.350 would satisfy the requirements in\n5 172.3 1 O(b).\nWe will address this issue in a future rulemaking.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.\nSincerely,\n! Ofice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nL ea ry §172-3 0 0\n§ 17 8 : 3\nPage 1 of 1\nDrakeford, Carolyn <PHMSA>\n.--- -- *---. *.*--- - -- \"---- *-%~ - +- \"**- -\"-\nFrom: INFOCNTR <PHMSA>\nSent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:42 AM\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn <PHMSA>\nSubject: FW: Request for Interpretation: 49 CFR 178.3(a)(4) and 172.31 0(b) Inconsistency\nAttachments: Roy A. Parker.vcf\nCarolyn,\nA request for interpretation on the issue below.\nThanks,\nRob\nFrom: Roy A. Parker [mailto:roy@royparker.org]\nSent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:27 PM\nTo: Gale, John <PHMSA>; INFOCNTR <PHMSA>\nCc: Boyle, Rick <PHMSA>; Ferate, Fred <PHMSA>; Williams, James <PHMSA>; Conroy, Michael <PHMSA>;\nPlessas, Karen < PHMSA>\nSubject: Request for Interpretation: 49 CFR 178.3(a)(4) and 172.310(b) Inconsistency\nJohn,\n49 CFR 178.350(c) requires that USA DOT 7A TYPE A be marked on a package in accordance with 49\nCFR 178.3(a)(4) which requires a height of 12 mm (0.5 in) unless the package is not greater than 30\nliters or 30 kg in which case the required height is 6 mm (0.25 in). This is consistent with IATA\n10.7.1.2.4.\n49 CFR 178.3(a)(4) is inconsistent with 49 CFR 172.3 10(b) which requires a height of 13 mm (0.5 in)\nfor the TYPE A portion only.\nIAEA TS-R-1 and ICAO 2007-2008 appear to be mute and do not offer any guidance on marking size\nrequirements unless I missed it. Neither do I find any DOT interpretations that address this issue.\nIATA 10.7.1.2.4 is consistent with 49 CFR 178.3(a)(4).\n49 CFR 178.3(a)(4) is more explicit, and directly applicable. Also, it is more practical for small\npackages. May 49 CFR 178.3(a)(4) be used without risking a violation of the more narrow 49 CFR\n172.3 10(b), until the regulations can be appropriately changed?\nRegards,\nRoy A. Parker, Ph.D.\nRadiation Physics Consultant","truncated":false,"body_characters":2930}