{"operation":"document","citation":"11-0191","title":"Carus Chemical Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2011-10-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"11-0191 response to Carus Chemical Company concerning 180.352.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0191.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0191.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0191","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/110191.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Deportment ofTronsportotion Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nOCT 1 2 2011\nChithambarathanu G. Pillai, Ph.D.\nCarns Chemical Company\n1500 Eighth Street\nP.O. Box 1500\nLaSalle, IL 61301-3500\nRef. No.: 11-0191\nDear Dr. Pillai:\nThis responds to your August 8, 2011 letter seeking clarification of IBC marking requirements\nofthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask\nif § 180.352(b)(2)(i) permits the IBC owner to replace the plates containing the manufacturer's\nmarkings.\nThe answer to your question is yes. Missing or damaged markings, or markings difficult to\nread, must be restored or returned to their original condition. This may include replicating and\nreplacing the plates containing the manufacturer's markings.\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact the\nStandards and Rulemaking Division at (202) 366-8553.\nBen Supko\nActing Chief, Standards Development\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nc::: A R. (J S® w,mer\n~ l'OO.3-\"2(b)(z)~)\nt3115.703\nT&('s\nIl-D/q,\nAugust 8, 2011\nu.s. Department of Transportation\nPHMSA Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nAttn: PHH -10 East Building\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nRe: Request for Interpretation of 49 c.P.R. § 180.352\nDear Sir or Madam:\nAs the Regulatory Manager and Responsible Care Coordinator for Carus Corporation, I\nam writing to request that you confinn our interpretation of49 C.P.R. § lS0.352(b )(2)(i). That\nsection requires that IBC's be \"marked in accordance with requirements in § 178.703 ofthis\nSubchapter.\" \"., r-, '\n\" ,/. \"\nThe specific issue involves the language explaining that \"missing or' daI)1aged iU<lfkings,\nor markings difficult to read must be restored or returned to original condition.'\" \"As the owner of\nIBCs, Carus conducts the required periodic visual inspections. In some cases, the visual . .\ninspection reveals that the plates on which the manufacturer's markings were placed are too\nworn to be readable. The question we have is whether under these circumstimces the regulations\npennit Carus as the IBC owner to use a plate with the required markings that it fabricates instead\nof a plate from the original IBC manufacturer. The plate with the markings that Cahls can\nfabricate will wear better and retain markings longer than the original plate provided by the\nmanufacturer of the IBC. Whether replacement plates are even available from the original IBC\nmanufacturer in all cases is unknown. Carus already provides the information required by 49\nC.P.R. §IS0.352(e) by using plates that it fabricates.\nThe regulatory language appears to be sufficiently broad to allow the IBC owner\nconducting the required periodic re-tests of the !BCs to replace the plates containing the\nmanufacturer's markings. When the pI,ate is missing or dama~ed such that the markings are riot\nreadable, adding a new plate that contains the markings \"restores\" the markings. In addition,\nadding a new plate is the only way to return the markings ''to original condition\" in many cases.\nSection IS0.352(b)(2)(i) could state explicitly that the required m~rkings must be locat(!d on a .\nplate provided by the original IBC manufacturer, but does not. The relevant requirement appears\nto be that the markings be readable, not that the plates on which the markings are contained must\nCarus Chemical Company\nI 500 Eighth Street\nROo Box 1500\nlaSalle, IL 6130 I -3500\nTel (815) 223 1500\nFax (8 15) 224 68 I 6\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nC: ARLJS\ncome from the original IBC manufacturer. Unfortunately, the Federal Register preambles to the\nproposed and final rule for this section of the regulations (57 Fed. Reg. at 36697 (August 14,\n1992) and 59 Fed. Reg. at 38050 (July 26, 1994)) do not clarify the issue, and we could locate no\nletters of interpretation on the subj ect.\nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter.\nVery truly yours,\nCbithambarathanu G. Piliai, Ph.D.\n'P:\ncc: Eric E. Boyd","truncated":false,"body_characters":4048}