{"operation":"document","citation":"09-0136","title":"SJ Transportation Co., Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-01-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"09-0136 response to SJ Transportation Co., Inc. concerning 178.345.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0136.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0136.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0136","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090136.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nJAN 2 7 zmn\nMr. Christopher P. Prioli\nSafety & Compliance Manager\nSJ Transportation Co., Inc.\nP.O. Box 169\n1176 U.S. Route 40\nWoodstown, NJ 08098\nRef. No. 09-0136\nDear Mr. Prioli:\nThis responds to your letter requesting clarification of the construction and marking\nrequirements for DOT 407/412 variable specification cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMVs)\nunder the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Your questions\nare paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1. Under § 178.345-14(c)(6) and (c)(7), the maximum loading and unloading rates in\ngallons-per-minute must be marked on the specification plate of a DOT 406,407 and 412\nCTMV. The manufacturer of our variable specification DOT 407/412 CTMVs only marks\nthe pressure on the specification plate at which the maximum loading and unloading rate is\ngiven as a hyphen that denotes no limit is placed on the flow rate. Is this practice correct?\nAI. No. As specified in the introductory text under § 178.345-14(c), the maximum loading\nand unloading rate in gallons-per-minute entry is required regardless of its applicability or\nappropriateness.\nQ2. Our company's DOT 412 CTMVs were found to be in violation of the venting and\ndrainage requirements for ring stiffeners that enclose an air space under § 178.345-7( d)( 4).\nWhat is the appropriate location for ring stiffener drains? Must the vents be visible to verify\ncompliance?\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA2. The HMR do not explicitly dictate the location of vented drains in the enclosed air space\nofa ring stiffener. It is the opinion ofthis Office that a ring stiffener drain or vent should be\nvisible, as far as practicable, in order to verify compliance with the HMR. Additionally, there\nis no need to install mUltiple vents or drains when only one satisfies the intent and\nfunctionality of the requirement.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice ofHazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n, 5fev.e11 t;\n, . 4..~~\"\n~/78.346-1\n~ A~\nTransportation Co., Inc. ~ 17 c. 3'16 -\nCJ _ t856)769-2741\nI~\nCaAg 0 (an k~ 800~524-2552\nP.O. Box 169 Fax 856 769-4248\n1176 U.S. Route 40 Oq-o 131.,. Fax (856769-9811\nWoodstown, NJ 08098 't' www.sjtransportation.com\nSJ\n27 May 2009\nUnited States Department of Transportation\nPHMSA Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nAttn: PHH-10 East Building-----J'\n1200 New Jersey AV9(lue/SE\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nRE: DOT-412 Specification Cargo Tank Requirements\nDear Sirs:\nI am seeking guidance regarding two. separate issues as outlined below. My interest in\nthese issues stems from violations charged at recent roadside i·nspectiom~.\nThe first issue involves information requirE~.d to be marked on'the DOT-412 specification\nplate per 49 CFR §178.345-14(c)(6) and, §17S-.34,5-'14~c)(7( Theregl)lati.on $tatesfhat the\nmaximum loading rate!n. ,9,ia,lIqnsp~r mir:lute~nd th~ rn.aXi\":li.JI11 u'~roaclin'g,rate in gallons per\nminute are to be mar~ed on theplate:',ThevehiCle in ,question is a ~001 Sta1n.less Tank &\nEquipment (ST&E) DOT -407/DOT-412 cargo tank mofor vehicle. Although maximum '\nloading and unloading pressures are shown on the speci'fication plate, the rates are not\nshown; instead, a line is marked in the blocks provided for the loading and unloading rates\n(see Figures 1 and 2), In a telephone conversation earlier today, Mr. Paul Kreuger of\nST&E's Engineering Department stated that the specification plate is so marked because\nthere is no limitation placed on the maximum loading and unloading rates for this tank. He\nfurther stated that very few of ST&E's cargo tanks of this type have such a limit, and that\ntherefore the specification plates of those tanks are al~o not markeOwith maximum loading\nand unloading rates. Having been charged with a violation of §178.345-14(C} forjhese\nlimits not being marked on 'the specification plate, I now must ask what the' proper marking\nshould be if the manufacturer does not impose an upper limit on loading and unloading\nrates, and if a plate marked as shown in Figure 1 is in violation?\nSecondly, I have a question regarding the 49 CFR§178~345-7(d)(4) requirement for drain\nholes in ring stiffeners on DOT-412 cargo tanks. At the time of a roadside inspection\nperformed in New York State on 28 April 2008, an inspector cited us for violation of\n§178.345-7(d)(4) in that the drain holes in two of the ring stiffeners were \"covered\" by\nEnvironmental Transportation and Logistics\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nadditional structural members, specifically the framework of the under-ride protection\naround the belly valve on the trailer. In that circumstance, the ring stiffeners actually had\nworking drain holes that let into the under-ride frame, which in turn was open at the ends of\nits tubular members and thus provided adequate drainage. The inspector's concern, which\nis easily understood, is that there is no practical means of verifying the presence of the ring\ndrains in that scenario. As a result, and after conferring with ST&E (the manufacturer of\nthat tank), we campaigned our fleet, drilling drain holes at the bottom of the (vertical) side of\nthe ring stiffeners of any trailers with such \"hidden\" drain holes.\nNow, just over a year later, the trailer discussed in Question 1 above was also cited for not\nhaving drain holes in the ring stiffeners to which the under-ride frame is mounted, in spite of\nthe fact that there are holes present in the ring stiffeners as discussed in the previous\nparagraph (see Figures 3 and 4). In light of these inspections, I am looking for specific\ninformation regarding the requisite location of ring stiffener drain holes. The regulation is\nsomewhat vague in this regard, stating only that any air spaces enclosed by ring stiffeners\nmust \"be arranged for venting and be equipped with drainage facilities which must be kept\noperative at all times.\" Obviously, there is nothing in the regulation that fixes the specific\nlocation of such \"drainage facilities\". What locations are acceptable for such drain holes,\nand are drain holes located as are those in the accompanying photographs adequate for\ncompliance with §178.345-7(d)(4)?\nI look forward to hearing from you in the near future, and I hope that you will be able to\nprovide the guidance that I need.\nSincerely,\nChristopher P. Prioli\nSafety & Compliance Manager\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nFigure 3 - Ring Stiffener Drain Hole (Forward Ring)\nFigure 4 - Ring Stiffener Drain Hole (Aft Ring)\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nFigure 1 - Trailer Specification Plate\nFigure 2 - Trailer Name Plate","truncated":false,"body_characters":6732}