{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0036","title":"Idaho State Police — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2001-03-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0036 response to Idaho State Police concerning 173.315.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0036.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0036.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0036","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000036.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\n100 Seventh Street. SW\nof Transportation\nNashington. D.C. 2059\nResearch and\nAdministration\nSpecial Programs\nMAR 1 6 2001\nTrooper William I. Reese\nRef. No. 00-0036\nIdaho State Police\nHazardous Materials Specialist\n5205 South 5th Avenue\nPocatello, ID 83204\nDear Trooper Reese:\nThis is in reference to your letter dated January 21, 2000, in.which you raised several questions\nanhydrous ammonia or liquefied petroleum gas under the provisions in 49 CFR 173.315(a),\nconcerning the use of a non-DOT specification cargo tank motor vehicle for the transportation of\nNote 17, or (k), respectively. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your questions are\nparaphrased and answered in the order posed in your letter.\nQ1.\nUnder the provisions for the transportation of anhydrous ammonia prescribed in\n§ 173.315(a), Note 17, may a nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle be used in a\nstate that had no specific state laws that allowed or addressed its use prior to January 1,\n1981?\nAl.\nThe answer is yes. The continued use of a nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle\ntransporting anhydrous ammonia is permitted under the following conditions: (1) the\nstate had not adopted the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-\n180) prior to January 1, 1981; (2) the state's laws that were in effect prior to January 1,\n1981, permitted or never prohibited the use of a nonspecification cargo tank motor\nvehicle for the transportation of anhydrous ammonia, and (3) the conditions prescribed in\n§ 173.315(a), Note 17, are met.\nConversely, the continued use of a cargo tank motor vehicle is not permitted if prior to\nJanuary 1, 1981, the state had adopted, or had incorporated by reference, the HMR\nrequirements into its own regulations. In this situation, the continued use of the cargo\ntank is permitted under the conditions prescribed in § 173.315(a), Note 17, only if the\nstate's laws specifically permitted the use of a nonspecification cargo tank for\ntransportation of a hazardous material in intrastate commerce.\nQ2.\nMay the nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle referred to in Q1 be used in interstate\ncommerce or must the cargo tank be used in intrastate only; that is, within a single state\nonly?\n/73.315\n000036\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA2.\nThe nonspecification cargo tank may be used in intrastate commerce only, as stated in\nparagraph 7 to § 173.315, Note 17.\nQ3.\nUnder the provisions for the transportation of liquefied petroleum gas prescribed in\n§ 173.315(k), can a nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle be used in a state that had\nno specific state laws that allowed or addressed its use prior to January 1, 1981?\nA3.\nYes, see explanation in Al above.\nQ4. May the nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle referred to in Q3 be used in interstate\ncommerce or must the cargo tank be used in intrastate only; that is, within a single state\nonly?\nA4. See A2 above.\nQ5.\nMay a carrier who has operations in more than one state that allows the use of a\nnonspecification cargo tank motor vehicle under the provisions in § 173.315(a), Note 17,\nor § 173.315(k), move periodically the cargo tank from state to state as long as it is used\nspecifically for intrastate commerce after it is moved?\nA5.\nNo. Prior to January 1, 1981, certain states permitted the use of these nonspecification\ncargo tanks under the terms of a state permit only. Some states had stricter operating\ncontrols than others. The final rules were adopted on the basis that these cargo tanks\nwhen properly maintained could continue to operate exclusively within that same state\nuntil taken out of service.\n06.\nWhy were these intrastate commerce provisions adopted into the HMR?\nA6.\nWith the passage of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, states were\nencouraged to adopt the HMR to promote uniformity in safety regulations throughout the\nnation. As states began adopting the HMR, it was brought to our attention that a number\nof cargo tanks not subject to the HMR had been constructed in conformance with certain\nconsensus standards and used in intrastate commerce for many years. The situation\nintensified with the adoption of a rule in 1980 that extended authority over the intrastate\nshipment of hazardous substances by motor carrier and made the provisions of the HMR\napply to the carriage of these substances. Anhydrous ammonia was one of the materials\ndesignated as a hazardous substance with a reportable quantity of 100 pounds. We\nadopted the provisions in § 173.315 (a), Note 17, and (k) to permit the continued use of\nthese nonspecification cargo tanks for the transportation of anhydrous ammonia (Docket\nHM-166K, 47 FR 7244; February 18, 1982) and liquefied petroleum gas (Docket HM-\n1661, 47 FR 7242; February 18, 1982). The provisions permit the continued use of these\ncargo tanks in intrastate commerce until they are taken out of service and replaced with\nnew cargo tanks that meet DOT requirements. These regulatory actions were taken to\nprovide economic relief to the agricultural community and to small business operators.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nHatte 2. mitchell\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n:\nSTATE OF IDAHO\nDEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT\nIDAHO STATE POLICE DIVISION\nDIRK KEMPTHORNE\nE.D. STRICKFADEN\nGovernor\nDirec anuary 21, 2000\nUS Department of Transportation\nHattie Mitchell\n400 7\" Stroct SW, Room 8422\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nWashingion, DC 20590\nMs. Mitahell,\nPer on conversation on the phone I would request clarification on the following issue's:\n1) In 173.315(a), Note 17, there is a specific exception for the use of non-specification cargo tanks used to transport\noperated exclusively in intrastate commerce (including its operation by a motor carrier otherwise engaged in\nanhydrous ammonia. There are eight specific requirement's listed for these tanks. Number seven states.\ninterstate commerce) in a state where its operation was permited by the laws of that state (not including\nstate laws that allowed or addressed their use prior to January 1, 1981?\nincorporation of this subchapter) prior to January 1, 1981\". Can these tanks be used in a slale that had no specific\n2). Can the tanks referred to in question #I be used in interstare commerce or must the unks only be used intrastate\nis she stase where they are being operated?\n3) In 173.315(k) there is a specific exception for the usc of non-specification cargo tanks usca to transport liquefied\npetroleum gas.\nexclusively in intrastate commerce (including its operation by a motor carrier otherwise engaged in interstate\nThere are eight specific requirement's listed for these tanks Number six states, \"Is operated\nhis subchapter) priar to January 1, 1981\". Can these lanks be used in a state that had no specific stale laws tha\nommerce) in a state where its operation was permitted by the laws of that state (not including the incorporation o\nallowed or addressed their use prior to January 1, 1981?\n4)\nCan the lanks referred to in question #3 be used in interstate commerce or must the tanks only be used intrastare\nin the state where they are being operated!\n5) Can a carrier, who has operations in more than one state that allows the use of these tanks, move any of the lanks\nmentioned above from state to state as long as they are used specifically for intrastate commerce after they are\n6) Why was the intrastate commerde provision pur into the regulation to begin with?\nYou asked me on the phone when Idaho frst adopted the federal regulations by refrence. I am still trying to find the\nthat addressed the transportation of anhydrous ammonia or liquched petroleum gas.\ncxact date. When I find out the exact date I will let you know. I do know that our state has had no specific state laws\nThese specific issues have surfaced several times over the last couple of years and several times just in the last mont\nwould send me copies of the final rule published in the federal register on 02/15/82.\nn our state. We would like an official reply for our benefit as well as industries. I would also appreciate it if you\nSincerely,\nuhea\nTrooper William L. Rosc\nHaurdous Materials Specialist\nIdaho State Police\nP.O. BOX 700. MERIDIAN, ID 83680-0700 • (208) 884-7200 • FAX (208) 884-7290\nEQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER\nDistrict d\nDistrict 2\nDistrict 3\nDistrict 4\nDistrict 5\nDistrict 6\n602 W. Praltlc Avcnuc\n2700 N & S Highway N\n3056 Elder Street\n626 Easland Drive S., Ste. D\n5205 South Sti\n1S40 Foult Drive\nCoeur d'Alene, ID 83815 Lewiston, ID 83501\nBoise, ID 83705\nI'vin Falls, ID 83301\nPocatello, ID 83204\nIdsho Falls, ID 83402\nPhone: (20B) 772-6055\nPhune: (208) 799-5151\nPhone: (208)3343731 Phone: (208) 736-3072\nPhone: (208)236-6466\nPhone: (2118)525-7377\nFax: (208)772-8244\nFax:\n(208) 799-5146\nFax: (208)334-2691 Fax: (208)736-3071\nFax: (208)236-6068 Fax: (208)525-7294\n** TOTAL PAGE.02 **\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n...\nJ.S. Departmen\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nof Transportatior\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nMAR 2 2001\nMr. Ken Sumner\nReference No. 00-0218\nPresident, KWS Training, Inc.\nP.O. Box 562\nCarrboro, NC 27510\nDear Mr. Sumner:\nThis is in response to your letter concerning the emergency response requirements in 49\nCFR Part 172, Subpart G, for a \"Consumer commodity, ORM-D.\" You asked why a\nconsumer commodity is excepted from having to meet the emergency response\nrequirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180),\nbut must meet these same requirements under State Variation US 12 of the International\nCivil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Transport of Dangerous\nGoods by Air (the ICAO Technical Instructions).\nMaterials that are correctly described as consumer commodity and classed as ORM-D, as\nprovided by the HMR, or Class 9, as provided by the ICAO Technical Instructions, are\nnot required to meet the emergency response information requirements. Voluntary\ncompliance with this change was permitted after August 18, 2000(65 FR 50450, RSPA\nDocket No. 99-6213, HM-218, copy enclosed). This authorization in the HMR serves as\na Competent Authority approval for the ICAO Technical Instructions. Also, State\nVariation US 12 was revised to include this change, which will appear in the 2001-2002\nedition of the ICAO Technical Instructions.\nI hope this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\nHothe z. mithell\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nEnclosure\n:600\n112\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nEdmonson\n$172.600(a)\nKWS Training, Inc.\nEmergency Response\nIntormation\nSpecializing in hazardous materials transportation.\n00-0218\nPO Box 562\nCarrboro NC 27510\n(919) 929-7234\n8/3/00\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nU.S. DOT/RSPA (DHM-10)\n10a in son, SC. 20500-0001\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nIn January of this year I emailed the question below to the Hazardous Materials\nInformation Center. They acknowledged the issue and thought additional review would\nbe appropriate. On the recommendation of the HMIC I then faxed the question to the\nattention of Frits Wybenga and Bob Richards. Mr. Wybenga contacted me and suggested\nI forward the question to you for a more formal response.\nIt appears the United States has two different positions on providing emergency\nresponse information for shipments of consumer commodities. For shipments made under\nthe provisions of 49 CFR emergency response information is not required. For shipments\nmade under the ICAO Technical Instructions it appears emergency response information\nis required.\nThe provisions of 172.600(d) except materials properly classified as an ORM-D\n(consumer commodities and cartridges, small arms) from the emergency response\ninformation requirements of Subpart G of Part 172. This means that shippers of consumer\ncommodities, by any mode of transport within the United States, do not have to provide\nan emergency phone number or emergency response information.\n(ICAO Technical Instructions) this appears to be incorrect. According to ICAO State\nVariation USG-12 \"On shipments to, from, within or transiting through the U.S.,\nemergency response information as described below must be provided for all dangerous\ngoods other than magnetized material and dangerous goods for which no Transport\nDocument is required.\" Since consumer commodities require a transport document for\ncarriage aboard aircraft, emergency response information requirements appear to apply.\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nAdditionally, consumer commodities are considered Class 9, not ORM-D, under the\nICAO Technical Instructions. This means they do not qualify under 172.600(d) as\n\"properly classified as an ORM-D\".\ncontradiction to require emergency response information under the ICAO Technical\nGiven the exception in 49 CFR for consumer commodities it seems a\nInstructions. Would it be more appropriate to reword 172.600(d) and USG-12 for\nconsistency? Your clarification of this issue would be most appreciated.\nRegards,\nThen dum\nfen Sumne\nPresident","truncated":false,"body_characters":13122}