{"operation":"document","citation":"19-0046","title":"Alloy Custom Products, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2019-07-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"19-0046 response to Alloy Custom Products, LLC concerning 178.338, 178.345.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-19-0046.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-19-0046.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-19-0046","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/71896/190046.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nJUL 2 2 2019\nEvan Mills\nCompliance Engineer\nAlloy Custom Products, LLC\nLafayette,IN 47905\nReference No. 19-0046\nDear Mr. Mills:\nThis letter is in response to your April 5, 2019, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171--I 80) applicable to Specification MC-338 cargo\ntank motor vehicle (CTMV) rear-end tank protection requirements. In§ 178.338-lO(c), there are\ntwo options that allow a person to comply with rear-end tank protection for an MC-338 CTMV.\nThe first option is to fully comply with the requirements of§ 178.338-10( c )(1 ). The second\noption in § 178.338-10( c )(2) directs a person to comply with the requirements found in\n§ 178.345-8(b ).\nYou believe the reference to § 178.345-8(b) is incorrect because it refers to bottom damage\nprotection and not rear-end tank protection. You believe the correct reference should be\n§ 178.345-8( d).\nYour understanding is correct that the reference found in § 178.33 8-10( c )(2) should be\n§ 178.345-8( d). The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), now the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), published a Notice of Proposed\nRulemaking, HM-183C [60 FR 17398] on April 5, 1995, which proposed to revise the\nrequirements for rear-end tank protection devices for MC-331 and MC-338 CTMVs to allow\nDOT 400 series rear-end tank protection devices as an alternative. In final rule HM-213 [68 FR\n19258], published April 18, 2003, RSPA added the provision to allow rear-end tank protection\n· devices to conform with§ 178.345-8; however, this new provision was added with the incorrect\nreference to paragraph (b). In final rule HM-213 [68 FR 52363], published on September 3,\n2003, RSP A addressed the error in the preamble yet, RSP A inadvertently left the incorrect\nreference to paragraph (b ).\nPHMSA is aware of this error and will address the error in a future rulemaking.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nDirk Der Kinderen\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nJanuary, lkeya CTR (PHMSA)\nFrom: Baker, Yul (PHMSA)\nSent: To:\nCc:\nSubject:\nAttachments: Friday, April 05, 2019 1:42 PM\nJanuary, Ikeya CTR (PHMSA); Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nDerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA); Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\nFW: Request for interpretation regarding\nMC-338 Rear End Protection - Request for Clarification.pdf\nlkeya / Alice,\nCan you please enter this as a formal request for a letter of interpretation and assign it to me to complet.\nV/r\n:Mr. rtu[ \nSent: Friday, April 05, 2019 1:21 PM\nTo: Baker, Yul (PHMSA) \nCc: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) ; Isaac Zimmer \nSubject: RE: Request for interpretation regarding\nMr. Yul Brenner Baker Jr.,\nOur request is for clarification on which paragraph in 178.345-8 can be complied with for MC338 rear end protection.\nIt might be considered more of a clarification just as you stated in your email earlier that the appropriate reference\nshould be 178.345-8(d) and not (b). Possibly making note in the interpretation that this will be remedied in a future\nruling if you are able to present it this way.\nEvan\nFrom: Baker, Yul (PHMSA) \nSent: Friday, April 5, 2019 11:49 AM\nTo: Evan Mills \nCc: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) ; Isaac Zimmer \nSubject: RE: Request for interpretation regarding\nMr. Mills,\nCan you provide me your specific interpretation request regarding MC 338 CTMVs? I want to make sure I provide a\nspecific and accurate response to your request.\n1//r\n:Mr. rtu [ >>\n\n'Transportation Specialist (Standards and \nSent: Friday, April 05, 2019 11:17 AM\nTo: Baker, Yul (PHMSA) \nCc: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) ; Isaac Zimmer \nSubject: RE: Request for interpretation regarding\nHi Mr. Yul Brenner Baker Jr.,\nWe appreciate your timely response. Your email will be sufficient for our purposes to continue manufacturing MC338\nspecification cargo tank motor vehicles.\nHowever, we believe the industry would benefit from an official interpretation being published. It is unclear how long it\nwill take before the regulations can be corrected.\nOur request is for the letter of interpretation to be answered and published during this transition phase.\nRegards,\nEvan Mills\nCompliance Engineer\nAlloy Custom Products, LLC\nFrom: Baker, Yul (PHMSA) \nSent: Friday, April 5, 2019 10:55 AM\nTo: Evan Mills \nCc: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) \nSubject: Request for interpretation regarding\nMr. Mills,\nWe received your request for interpretation regarding the requirements for MC 338 CTMVs, specifically for accident damage\nprotection. We are aware of the error in§ 178.338-10(c)(2) and we are revising this reference in an upcoming editorial rulemaking that\nis being drafted. The correct reference in§ 178.338-10 (c)(2) should be§ 178.345-B(d) and not§ 178.345-8(b).\nIf you have any questions or if you still need a letter of interpretation regarding this matter, please let me know.\n'V/r\n'Mr. rtu[ >>\n\nALLOY\nCUSTOM PRODUCTS\n>. :-,~J:.i 1'.I INO ·'5, 1,·1.1..: <\";f;i. ,;10~;•, ~,:,-, .. ,,,..,,.\nMr. Shane Kelley\nDirector, Standards and Rulemaking Division\nU.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHHH-10}\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE East Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. Kelley,\nPlease accept this letter as an official request for an interpretation regarding the requirements for rear-end\ntank protection of an MC-338 specification cargo tank motor vehicle. As it is currently written in 178.338-\nlO(c} there are two options given for rear-end tank protection device compliance. The first option is a rear-\nend tank protection device complying with 178.338-lO(c)(l). The alternative listed is 178.338-10(c)(2) which\npoints to a rear-end tank protection device complying with 178.345-S(b}.\nHowever, when referencing 178.345-S(b}, this paragraph is referring to a bottom damage protection device\nand not a rear-end tank protection device. It is our belief along with representatives from FMCSA that the\nintended paragraph for rear-end protection device compliance should be 178.345-S(d} rear-end tank\nprotection.\nIt is also important to note the reference made for MC-331 cargo tank motor vehicles rear-end tank\nprotection is 178.345-S(d}.\nPlease confirm which paragraph in 178.345-8 is acceptable for rear-end protection of MC-338 specification\ncargo tank motor vehicles.\nRegards,\ni ~N&\nEvan Mills\nCompliance Engineer\nAlloy Custom Products, LLC\nLafayette, IN 47905","truncated":false,"body_characters":7701}