# Alloy Custom Products, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

- **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:** Not available
- **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:**

<<<PAGE 1>>>

U.S. Department
of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration
JUL 2 2 2019
Evan Mills
Compliance Engineer
Alloy Custom Products, LLC
Lafayette,IN 47905
Reference No. 19-0046
Dear Mr. Mills:
This letter is in response to your April 5, 2019, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171--I 80) applicable to Specification MC-338 cargo
tank motor vehicle (CTMV) rear-end tank protection requirements. In§ 178.338-lO(c), there are
two options that allow a person to comply with rear-end tank protection for an MC-338 CTMV.
The first option is to fully comply with the requirements of§ 178.338-10( c )(1 ). The second
option in § 178.338-10( c )(2) directs a person to comply with the requirements found in
§ 178.345-8(b ).
You believe the reference to § 178.345-8(b) is incorrect because it refers to bottom damage
protection and not rear-end tank protection. You believe the correct reference should be
§ 178.345-8( d).
Your understanding is correct that the reference found in § 178.33 8-10( c )(2) should be
§ 178.345-8( d). The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), now the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, HM-183C [60 FR 17398] on April 5, 1995, which proposed to revise the
requirements for rear-end tank protection devices for MC-331 and MC-338 CTMVs to allow
DOT 400 series rear-end tank protection devices as an alternative. In final rule HM-213 [68 FR
19258], published April 18, 2003, RSPA added the provision to allow rear-end tank protection
· devices to conform with§ 178.345-8; however, this new provision was added with the incorrect
reference to paragraph (b). In final rule HM-213 [68 FR 52363], published on September 3,
2003, RSP A addressed the error in the preamble yet, RSP A inadvertently left the incorrect
reference to paragraph (b ).
PHMSA is aware of this error and will address the error in a future rulemaking.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Dirk Der Kinderen
Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division

<<<PAGE 2>>>

January, lkeya CTR (PHMSA)
From: Baker, Yul (PHMSA)
Sent: To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments: Friday, April 05, 2019 1:42 PM
January, Ikeya CTR (PHMSA); Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)
DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA); Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)
FW: Request for interpretation regarding
MC-338 Rear End Protection - Request for Clarification.pdf
lkeya / Alice,
Can you please enter this as a formal request for a letter of interpretation and assign it to me to complet.
V/r
:Mr. rtu[ <Brenner <Bak.fr Jr.
Transportation Specia[ist (Stanaards ana <J(uCemakj,ng <Di0vision)
Office of Jfazaraous :Materiafs Safety (OJf'MS)
Pipeline anaJfazaraous :Materiafs Safety )Mministration (PJ-[:MSJI)
!£21-350
Office num6er: 202-493-0867
From: Evan Mills <evan.mills@cryoindsolutions.com>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2019 1:21 PM
To: Baker, Yul (PHMSA) <yul.baker@dot.gov>
Cc: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) <Dirk.DerKinderen@dot.gov>; Isaac Zimmer <isaac.zimmer@cryoindsolutions.com>
Subject: RE: Request for interpretation regarding
Mr. Yul Brenner Baker Jr.,
Our request is for clarification on which paragraph in 178.345-8 can be complied with for MC338 rear end protection.
It might be considered more of a clarification just as you stated in your email earlier that the appropriate reference
should be 178.345-8(d) and not (b). Possibly making note in the interpretation that this will be remedied in a future
ruling if you are able to present it this way.
Evan
From: Baker, Yul (PHMSA) <yul.baker@dot.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 11:49 AM
To: Evan Mills <evan.mills@cryoindsolutions.com >
Cc: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) <Dirk.DerKinderen@dot.gov>; Isaac Zimmer <isaac.zimmer@cryoindsolutions.com >
Subject: RE: Request for interpretation regarding
Mr. Mills,
Can you provide me your specific interpretation request regarding MC 338 CTMVs? I want to make sure I provide a
specific and accurate response to your request.
1//r
:Mr. rtu [ <Brenner <Bak.fr Jr.
1

<<<PAGE 3>>>

'Transportation Specialist (Standards and <R_,uwmakJ,llfJ ([)ivision)
Office of Jfazardous 'Materiafs Safety (OJf'MS)
Pipel:ine andJfazardous 'Materiafs Safety }ldministration (<PJ{'MS}l)
!E21-350
Office num6er: 202-493-0867
From: Evan Mills <evan.mills@cryoindsolutions.com>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2019 11:17 AM
To: Baker, Yul (PHMSA) <yul.baker@dot.gov>
Cc: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) <Dirk.DerKinderen@dot.gov>; Isaac Zimmer <isaac.zimmer@cryoindsolutions.com>
Subject: RE: Request for interpretation regarding
Hi Mr. Yul Brenner Baker Jr.,
We appreciate your timely response. Your email will be sufficient for our purposes to continue manufacturing MC338
specification cargo tank motor vehicles.
However, we believe the industry would benefit from an official interpretation being published. It is unclear how long it
will take before the regulations can be corrected.
Our request is for the letter of interpretation to be answered and published during this transition phase.
Regards,
Evan Mills
Compliance Engineer
Alloy Custom Products, LLC
From: Baker, Yul (PHMSA) <yul.baker@dot.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 10:55 AM
To: Evan Mills <evan.mills@cryoindsolutions.com>
Cc: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) <Dirk.DerKinderen@dot.gov>
Subject: Request for interpretation regarding
Mr. Mills,
We received your request for interpretation regarding the requirements for MC 338 CTMVs, specifically for accident damage
protection. We are aware of the error in§ 178.338-10(c)(2) and we are revising this reference in an upcoming editorial rulemaking that
is being drafted. The correct reference in§ 178.338-10 (c)(2) should be§ 178.345-B(d) and not§ 178.345-8(b).
If you have any questions or if you still need a letter of interpretation regarding this matter, please let me know.
'V/r
'Mr. rtu[ <Brenner <Ba/(gr Jr.
<Transportation Specia[ist (Standards and <R_,uwmakJ,llfJ ([)ivision)
Office of Jfazardous 'Materiafs Safety (OJ-f.MS)
Pipel:ine andJfazardous 'Materiafs Safety }ldministration (<PJ{'MSJl)
!E21-350
Office num6er.· 202-493-0867
2

<<<PAGE 4>>>

ALLOY
CUSTOM PRODUCTS
>. :-,~J:.i 1'.I INO ·'5, 1,·1.1..: <";f;i. ,;10~;•, ~,:,-, .. ,,,..,,.
Mr. Shane Kelley
Director, Standards and Rulemaking Division
U.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHHH-10}
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE East Building, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Kelley,
Please accept this letter as an official request for an interpretation regarding the requirements for rear-end
tank protection of an MC-338 specification cargo tank motor vehicle. As it is currently written in 178.338-
lO(c} there are two options given for rear-end tank protection device compliance. The first option is a rear-
end tank protection device complying with 178.338-lO(c)(l). The alternative listed is 178.338-10(c)(2) which
points to a rear-end tank protection device complying with 178.345-S(b}.
However, when referencing 178.345-S(b}, this paragraph is referring to a bottom damage protection device
and not a rear-end tank protection device. It is our belief along with representatives from FMCSA that the
intended paragraph for rear-end protection device compliance should be 178.345-S(d} rear-end tank
protection.
It is also important to note the reference made for MC-331 cargo tank motor vehicles rear-end tank
protection is 178.345-S(d}.
Please confirm which paragraph in 178.345-8 is acceptable for rear-end protection of MC-338 specification
cargo tank motor vehicles.
Regards,
i ~N&
Evan Mills
Compliance Engineer
Alloy Custom Products, LLC
Lafayette, IN 47905
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 7701