{"operation":"document","citation":"04-0082","title":"URS Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2004-11-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"04-0082 response to URS Corporation concerning 177.834.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0082.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0082.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0082","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2004/040082.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nNOV 16 2004\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nAdministration\nMr. Andrew N. Romach\nRef. No. 04-0082\nCorporate Regulatory Manager\nURS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\nMorrisvile, NC 27560-8421\nDear Mr. Romach:\nThis is in\nresponse to your March 29, 2004 letter requesting\nclarification of responsibility for loading and unloading\npackages under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR\nParts 171-180). In your scenario the shipper physically\ntransfers the drums containing hazardous materials onto a\ntransport vehicle and the carrier secures the drums against\ncarrier is in violation of the HMR if the drums are not\nmovement. Specifically, you ask whether the shipper or the\nadequately secured on the transport vehicle.\nDepending on the actual functions performed, one or both parties\nmay be held responsible for violations related to the carrier's\nload securing devices or methods.\nA shipper or carrier who\nperforms loading or unloading functions must perform those\nfunctions in accordance with applicable HMR requirements.\nSecuring drums or other packages in a transport vehicle is a\nloading function subject to regulation under the HMR. In your\nscenario, the shipper's personnel place the drums on the\nresponsibility for securing the load rests with the carrier's\ntransport vehicle, but, by agreement with the carrier,\npersonnel.\nShipper personnel verify that the load is properly\nsecured prior to the carrier's departure from the facility. In\naccordance with § 173.30, because both the shipper and the\ncarrier are involved in the loading operation, both are\nresponsible for assuring compliance with applicable HMR\nrequirements. In addition, in accordance with § 177.834 (a), a\ncarrier has a further responsibility to ensure that any package\nof hazardous materials not permanently attached to their motor\nvehicle is properly secured at all times while in\ntransportation.\n147.834\n040082\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nI hope this\ninformation is helpful. If you have further\nquestions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.\nSincerely,\nHallu z. Mtateli\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nStevens\nURS\n$117.834\nMarch 29, 2004\nLoading Unloading\nMr. Ed Mazzullo, Director\n04-0082\nOffice of Hazardous Material Standards\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 7th Street, SW (DHM-10)\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nFAX: (202) 366-3012\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nI am writing to you to request a written regulatory interpretation to clarify the shipper's\nresponsibil ty in a situation where the blocking and bracing configuration that secures several 55-\ngallon drums of hazardous material in place onboard a truck becomes dislodged during transit.\nThe specific questions are:\n?? Is the shipper responsible for any failures of the carrier's load-securing devices or\nfailures due to the carrier's securement methods that become apparent after the\ntruck leaves the shipper's facility?\n?? Is the shipper responsible because the shipper physically placed the containers\nontoard the truck, even though the truck driver signed the bill of lading verifying\nthat the load was secured properly?\n?? Is responsibility tied to the specific loading/blocking/bracing activity performed?\nhazardous materials by ground transportation to customers in various locations around the United\nThe situation about which we are concerned is as follows. A Company ships 55-gallon drums of\nStates. These HAZMAT shipments are transported onboard trucks by commercial carriers.\nThe Company prepares the drums for shipment (which includes packaging, marking, labeling).\nEmployees of the Company place the drums into the carrier's truck trailer. The carrier is\nto secure the load (such as load lock levers, straps, etc.) The Company has internal procedures,\nresponsible for securing the load, including responsibility for providing the necessary equipment\nare not allowed to secure the containers.\nwhich require the carrier to secure all containers prior to departure. Employees of the company\nPrior to allowing the Carrier to transport the load offsite, employees of the Company inspect the\nruck trailer to verify visually that the carrier has installed appropriate load securing devices\n'ollowing this inspection, the truck driver signs a statement on the bill of lading verifying tha\nthe load is secured properly.\n49 CFR §173.30 states that a person must load hazardous materials in accordance with\napplicable loading and unloading requirements. This provision might be interpreted as placing\nresponsibility for insuring proper loading upon the shipper in the situation above. However, this\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\nURS Corporation\nTel: 919.461.1220\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nFax: 919.461.1371\nandy_romach@urscorp.com\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nURS\ninterpretation seems to be at odds with the regulations governing the carriage of HazMat by\npublic highway. 49 CFR §177.834(a) sets forth the general requirement to secure loads against\nshifting. It is our understanding that responsibility for insuring compliance with this provision,\nfalls upon the carrier. Placing responsibility for insuring proper loading upon the shipper would\nseem to remove responsibility for this activity from the one entity that is most qualified to insure\ncompliance, i.e., the carrier. Also, 49 CFR §392.9 places load securement responsibilities on the\ncarrier anc! further requires the carrier to reexamine the load securement at intervals during the\ncourse of transportation and to make any necessary adjustments.\nWe appreciate your assistance in resolving this question. Thank you for your consideration of\nthis request.\nSincerely,\nAndrew N. Romach\nCorporate Regulatory Manager\nURS Corporation\nURS Corporation\nMorrisville, NC 27560\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\nFax: 919.461.1371\nTel: 919.461.1:220\nandy_romach@urscorp.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":5952}