# Transportation Enforcement Division Public Utilities Commission of Ohio — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 12-0136
- **title:** Transportation Enforcement Division Public Utilities Commission of Ohio — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation
- **source type:** guidance
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** guidance
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2012-08-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 12-0136 response to Transportation Enforcement Division Public Utilities Commission of Ohio concerning 177.834.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0136.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0136.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0136
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2012/120136.pdf
**body:**

<<<PAGE 1>>>

, , ,~ Cr-"'oartmPnt
·.~/rrn;;sportati~n
':oeiine tmd ~azarrdo~Js
·lc:.derials Satety
. :.a ministration
r.\IJ !' Jr-~'/¥ ljt;t"~~_..,,/ .~ .. \J~nue ~:-Jt:
. ::ll!PC!tOtl, UC ~;~_::<?~J
-IJG. o 1 41112
Carlisle Smith
Supervisor, Hazardous Materials Section
Transportation Enforcement Division
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
180 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Reference No.: 12-0136
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is in response to your June 21, 2012 email requesting guidance relating to the
highway transportation load securement requirements of the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You present a particular loading scenario for
intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) within a van type trailer and provide supporting
photographs. You ask whether the IBCs, loaded as described and depicted are in
compliance with the load securement requirements of the HMR.
The answer is no.
As depicted, the longitudinal (front to back) securement of the load may be appropriate,
however, the lateral (side-to side) securement is insuftl.cient. Section 177.834(a) of the
HMR provides, "Any package containing any hazardous material, not permanently
attached to a motor vehicle, must be secured against shifting, including relative motion
between packages, within the vehicle on which it is being transported, under conditions
normally incident to transportation." As loaded, voids between the lBCs and between the
IBCs and the sides of the trailer could allow the IBCs to shift. and there is no securement
mechanism in place to prevent the IBCs from shifting. Specific methods for securing
packages in a motor vehicle are not provided in the HMR. However, varied methods, such
as tiedowns, using dunnage or other cargo, shoring bars, jack bars, or toe-boards would be
acceptable to secure the IBCs from side to side movement within the trailer.
I trust this satistl.es your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Delmer Billings
Senior Regulatory Advisor
Standards and Rulemaking Division

<<<PAGE 2>>>

Drakeford, Carol n (PHMSA)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject: Attachments: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)
Friday, June 22, 2012 9:27 AM
Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)
FW: Request Formal Letter of Interpretation
OH3202305369 007.jpg; OH3202305369 008.jpg; OH3202305369 004.jpg
We received the following request for a formal letter of interpretation.
Victoria
From: Smith, Carlisle [mailto:Carlisle.Smith@puc.state.oh.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:52 PM
To: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)
Subject: Request Formal Letter of Interpretation
To Whom it may concern;
I am requesting a formal letter of interpretation of 49 CFR 177.834(a) regarding the proper securement of hazardous
materials packages in a closed transport vehicle. Attached please find photo evidence taken by an Ohio PUC HM
Specialist 9!16, 330 gallon IBC's containing Class 8 (6.1) material. 49 CFR 177.834(a) specifies that "any package
containing a hazardous material, not permanently attached to a motor vehicle must be secured against shifting,
including relative motion between packages, within the vehicle on which it is being transported, under conditions
normally incident to transportation." Our question is, are the packages as loaded in violation of 177.834(a)?
As you will see by the photo evidence provided, the IBC's were loaded in an staggered formation in the front ofthe
trailer, with the remaining IBC's loaded in an "I" formation. The rearmost IBC's were secured by a load strap. The IBC's
were not mounted to or secured to the floor of the trailer. There was no evidence of motion or movement of the
IBC's. As you will note, there were no means taken to prevent the IBC's from shifting into the void spaces on the left and
right sides of the packages.
A,r.eview of PHMSA (RSPA) Interpretations produced RSPA 97-0205 and RSPA 98-0021. Although neither Interpretation
responds to an exact duplicate of the Ohio scenario provided, they are the closest thing to be found.
Thank you for your assistance,
Sincerely,
Carlisle Smith
Carlisle Smith, Supervisor
Hazardous Materials Section
Transportation Enforcement Division
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
Office: 614-728-9126
1
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 4188