# LaRoche Industries Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

**Citation:** 99-0217  
**Type / status:** guidance / guidance  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 1999-11-23

99-0217 response to LaRoche Industries Inc. concerning 174.67.

## Document text

<<<PAGE 1>>>

U.S. Department
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
of Transportation
Washington, D.C.
20590
Special Programs
Research and
Administration
NOV 2 3 1999
Mr. Carlton W. Hendrix
Ref. No. 99-0217
DOT Compliance Manager
LaRoche Industries Inc.
1100 Johnson Ferry Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30342
Dear Mr. Hendrix:
This responds to your letter of August 3, 1999, requesting clarification of the attendance
requirements for unloading tank cars under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR
Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask for clarification of requirements for monitoring unloading
operations with remote cameras and for leaving unloading connections attached to a tank car
when no product is being transferred.
Section 174.67(i) of the HMR requires a tank car to be continuously attended throughout the
entire period of unloading and while the tank car is connected to an unloading device. This
requirement can be met by human attendance or by use of signaling systems, such as sensors,
alarms, and electronic surveillance equipment. Human monitoring must be performed by the
person responsible for the unloading operation. The attendant may monitor unloading from on-
site or from a remote location within the plant. In either location, the attendant must be
knowledgeable about the product, have the ability to identify conditions requiring action, and
have the capability and authority to halt the flow of product immediately.
In your letter, you describe a remote monitoring arrangement that involves five different
cameras, including one focused on the tank car unloading process, flashing to the same monitor
so that each camera's field of view appears on the monitor once every 1.5 minutes. This
arrangement does not conform to the requirements for monitoring the unloading of a tank car
outlined above: Observing an unloading operation one every 1.5 minutes is not continuous
You also describe an arrangement where two cameras, located at each end of four tank cars
coupled together, are positioned so that two cars are visible in each camera's field of view.
Provided the two cameras allow the attendant a continuous, unobstructed view of each tank car
and its unloading connections, this arrangement would satisfy the attendance requirements of
§ 174.67(i).
174.67
990217

<<<PAGE 2>>>

Finally, you ask whether a facility may leave unloading connections attached to a tank car when
no product is being transferred as long as the tank car is attended by a qualified person or by
remote monitoring devices. The answer is no. Section 174.67() requires all unloading
connections to be disconnected if the unloading operation is discontinued for any reason.
However, numerous facilities hold an exemption from the regulations to permit a tank car to
remain attached to unloading connections when no product is being transferred. Currently, the
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) has issued about 80 exemptions that
authorize the use of video cameras, process control gauges, flow gauges, and monitors to observe
tank cars with unloading connections attached when no product is being transferred. Under a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published under Docket HM-212 (57 FR 42466), RSPA
proposed to amend the tank car unloading requirements to remove obsolete or unnecessary
provisions and to allow tank cars to remain standing with unloading connections attached when
no product is being transferred. We are in the process of drafting the final rule for this
rulemaking. A copy of the NPRM is enclosed.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
Sincerely,
owns I. All
Thomas G. Allan
Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
Enclosure

<<<PAGE 3>>>

LA ROCHE INDUSTRIES INC.
Gersky
00 JOHNSON FERRY ROAD, N.
LANTA, GA 30342-17
$174.67
(404) 851-0300
August 3, 1999
99-0217
Mr. Ed Mazzullo
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street
Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Mazzullo,
I have recently observed several facilities where Anhydrous Ammonia tank car unloading
operations are being monitored by remote cameras. While observing these monitoring
arrangements, several questions have come to mind.
One facility has five different cameras strategically placed through out the facility. Each
one of these cameras is focused on a single aspect of the facility's operations, including
the Anhydrous Ammonia tank car unloading process. Each of the five camera's field of
view is flashed to the same monitor. It takes approximately 1.5 minutes for all of the five
camera's field of view to cycle and appear on that single monitor. Will this arrangement
meet the requirements of continuous monitoring?
Another facility has four (4) Anhydrous Ammonia tank cars coupled together and each
tank car is connected to an unloading station. There are two cameras, located at each end
of the four (4) tank cars, positioned so that two of these cars are visible from each
camera's field of view. Obviously the tank car closest to the camera's position has a
clearer picture of the unloading connections than the tank car farther away. Will this
arrangement meet the remote monitoring requirements?
The above facility has been leaving all four (4) Anhydrous Ammonia tank cars connected
to the unloading stations even though only two of them were in the process of unloading.
Apparently this situation has been observed by a FRA inspector and is considered to be
acceptable. Bureau of Explosives, Tariff No. BOE-6000-S, Appendix B to Part 209,
onnections, tightening valves, and applying closures to all openings. Note: If the car i
tates "174.67 G) Discontinued unloading without disconnecting all unloading
attended. this subsection does not apply.)". Is it acceptable to leave the unloading
connections attached to a tank car, as long as it is attended, either by a qualified person or
by remote monitoring devices?

<<<PAGE 4>>>

We would appreciate your assistance in clarifying the regulations relative to the
observations noted. I again would like to express my appreciation for the efforts of the
RSPA personnel in the successful completion of the HM225 Negotiated Rulemaking. I
think we all learned something from the experience.
Sincerely,
Cartton Wi. Hendix
Carlton (Carl) W. Hendrix
DOT Compliance Manager

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990217.pdf>
- Source ID: `phmsa`
- SHA-256: `6b198a5506904c94e9e3fde25abaaffd3e8e9ca2abd98d559ca853bee1ae918c`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T00:59:31.977Z
- Exported: 2026-08-23T21:33:35.170Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-interpretation-99-0217`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "materialSubtype": "interpretation",
  "interpretationArea": "hazardous_materials",
  "representation": "full_text_from_official_pdf",
  "companies": [
    "LaRoche Industries Inc."
  ],
  "individuals": [
    "Mr. Carlton W. Hendrix"
  ],
  "refIds": [
    "99-0217"
  ],
  "catalogDates": [
    "1999-11-23"
  ],
  "catalogParts": [
    174
  ],
  "catalogRowCount": 1,
  "sourceRecordUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/60176"
  ],
  "linkedAttachmentUrls": [],
  "unavailableResponseUrls": [],
  "duplicateRepresentationUrls": [],
  "citedSections": [
    "174.67",
    "174.67(i)"
  ],
  "catalogPageUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/17467"
  ],
  "pdfUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990217.pdf"
  ],
  "representations": [
    {
      "viewUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990217.pdf",
      "detailUrl": null,
      "detailHtmlPath": null,
      "pdfUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990217.pdf",
      "pdfArtifactPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/99-0217-27765a10aa.pdf",
      "pdfArtifactSha256": "d321a9a649283e2c9c3cf992ee5b645b123aab67beb0d7ba354bdeef7b7a0baa",
      "extractedTextPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/99-0217-27765a10aa.v2.txt",
      "extractedTextSha256": "91192c8b859bb74d50cced1b2f7dbe26c2933e8f8f75710e5eb8cd93228ef1ab",
      "pageCount": 4,
      "extractionVersion": 2
    }
  ],
  "caveat": "Interpretations apply regulations to the facts presented and do not create independently enforceable requirements.",
  "jurisdiction": "US"
}
```
