Carus Chemical Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Deportment ofTronsportotion Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 OCT 1 2 2011 Chithambarathanu G. Pillai, Ph.D. Carns Chemical Company 1500 Eighth Street P.O. Box 1500 LaSalle, IL 61301-3500 Ref. No.: 11-0191 Dear Dr. Pillai: This responds to your August 8, 2011 letter seeking clarification of IBC marking requirements ofthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask if § 180.352(b)(2)(i) permits the IBC owner to replace the plates containing the manufacturer's markings. The answer to your question is yes. Missing or damaged markings, or markings difficult to read, must be restored or returned to their original condition. This may include replicating and replacing the plates containing the manufacturer's markings. I hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact the Standards and Rulemaking Division at (202) 366-8553. Ben Supko Acting Chief, Standards Development Standards and Rulemaking Division#

Page 2c::: A R. (J S® w,mer ~ l'OO.3-"2(b)(z)~) t3115.703 T&('s Il-D/q, August 8, 2011 u.s. Department of Transportation PHMSA Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Attn: PHH -10 East Building 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590-0001 Re: Request for Interpretation of 49 c.P.R. § 180.352 Dear Sir or Madam: As the Regulatory Manager and Responsible Care Coordinator for Carus Corporation, I am writing to request that you confinn our interpretation of49 C.P.R. § lS0.352(b )(2)(i). That section requires that IBC's be "marked in accordance with requirements in § 178.703 ofthis Subchapter." "., r-, ' " ,/. " The specific issue involves the language explaining that "missing or' daI)1aged iU<lfkings, or markings difficult to read must be restored or returned to original condition.'" "As the owner of IBCs, Carus conducts the required periodic visual inspections. In some cases, the visual . . inspection reveals that the plates on which the manufacturer's markings were placed are too worn to be readable. The question we have is whether under these circumstimces the regulations pennit Carus as the IBC owner to use a plate with the required markings that it fabricates instead of a plate from the original IBC manufacturer. The plate with the markings that Cahls can fabricate will wear better and retain markings longer than the original plate provided by the manufacturer of the IBC. Whether replacement plates are even available from the original IBC manufacturer in all cases is unknown. Carus already provides the information required by 49 C.P.R. §IS0.352(e) by using plates that it fabricates. The regulatory language appears to be sufficiently broad to allow the IBC owner conducting the required periodic re-tests of the !BCs to replace the plates containing the manufacturer's markings. When the pI,ate is missing or dama~ed such that the markings are riot readable, adding a new plate that contains the markings "restores" the markings. In addition, adding a new plate is the only way to return the markings ''to original condition" in many cases. Section IS0.352(b)(2)(i) could state explicitly that the required m~rkings must be locat(!d on a . plate provided by the original IBC manufacturer, but does not. The relevant requirement appears to be that the markings be readable, not that the plates on which the markings are contained must Carus Chemical Company I 500 Eighth Street ROo Box 1500 laSalle, IL 6130 I -3500 Tel (815) 223 1500 Fax (8 15) 224 68 I 6#

Page 3C: ARLJS come from the original IBC manufacturer. Unfortunately, the Federal Register preambles to the proposed and final rule for this section of the regulations (57 Fed. Reg. at 36697 (August 14, 1992) and 59 Fed. Reg. at 38050 (July 26, 1994)) do not clarify the issue, and we could locate no letters of interpretation on the subj ect. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Cbithambarathanu G. Piliai, Ph.D. 'P: cc: Eric E. Boyd#