{"operation":"document","citation":"12-0259","title":"Dangerous Goods Advisory Council — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2012-12-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"12-0259 response to Dangerous Goods Advisory Council concerning 172.602.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0259.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0259.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0259","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2012/120259.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDEC 1 8 <·l\nVaughn Arthur\nPresident\nDangerous Goods Advisory Council\n1100 H Street, NW, Suite 740\nWashington, DC 20005\nRef. No. 12-0259\nDear Mr. Arthur:\nThis responds to your November 8, 2012 letter requesting PHMSA to reconsider the\nopinion issued in our May 9, 2012 letter (Ref. No. 12-0068). PHMSA has issued several\nletters of interpretation, including our May 9, 2012 letter (Ref. No. 12-0068), responding to\nrequests for us to clarify the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-\n180) applicable to the emergency response information required in§ 172.602(a)(l) and\n§ 172.602(b )(3 ).\nIn those letters PHMSA has consistently held that the requirements of§ 172.602(a)(l) and\n§ 172.602(b)(3) are not met solely by entering the Guide page ofthe Emergency Response\nGuidebook (ERG) on the shipping paper in association with the listing of the hazardous\nmaterial and attaching the Guide page to the shipping paper. PHMSA has stated that when\nan ERG Guide page, and not the entire ERG is used, the Guide page must include the basic\ndescription and if applicable, the technical name of the hazardous material. PHMSA has\nfurther stated that if the entire ERG, not just an ERG Guide page, is present on the transport\nvehicle, the requirements of§ 172.602(a)(l) and§ 172.602(b)(3) are satisfied.\nThe emergency response information requirements are designed to facilitate the immediate\nand reliable communication of information concerning the nature and quantity of hazardous\nmaterials moved in transportation, so that carrier personnel, law enforcement officials, and\nfirst responders know to take appropriate precautions in handling, law enforcement, and\nemergency response situations. Ultimately, the emergency response information is only as\neffective as the ability of these individuals to quickly identify the hazardous materials\npresent on the vehicle and respond appropriately to an incident involving those materials.\nAccordingly, if the emergency response information is provided in an ERG Guide page\nattached to the shipping paper, we require that the Guide page include the basic description\nand if applicable, the technical name of the hazardous material.\nIf you believe a rulemaking change is warranted, we invite you to file a petition for\nrulemaking in accordance with§ 106.95 including all information (see§ 106.100) needed\nto support your petition.\n------·-------------\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact this office.\nSincerely,\nRobert Benedict\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nc\n$Dangerous Goods Advisory Council\nSuite 740 + 1100 H Street NW + Washington DC 20005 + 202/289-4550 + Fax 202/289-4074 + www.dgac.org\nNovember 9, 2012\nMr. Charles Betts\nChief, Standards Rulemaking Division\nPipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\nRe: Request for reconsideration of PHMSA letter of interpretation #12-0068\nDear Mr. Betts:\nThe Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC) requests that you reconsider PHMSA's\ninterpretation. letter #12-0068. ln 'Our opinion, the conclusion is incorrect and is ·\ncontrary to indw:;tr:y practke. . , .\n. -\n. ' ~ .\n_.;,;\"':,_.\nT~E7.interpretation l~tter deals with th.e provision of emergency response information in\naccordance with §172.602(b)(3). In PHMSA's response to the questioner, PHMSA states\nthat when an E~G page, i.s used, ''it must include the basic description and if applicable,\nthe technica·l name of the hazardous materiaL\" 'lve question whether this !s required by\nthe regulations. . :;;. . . ,,.\n'' ·-\n~ !, -' • . •\nl /\n~\\'- . '\"\"' . ., .\nWe recognize that the required emergency response information may, in accordance\nwith §172.602(b)(3)(iii), be provided on a separate document such as an MSDS. In this\ncase, the basic description and technical name must be provided on the document.\nHowever, it is our opinion that providing emergency response information by way of a\nguide page from the NAERG is covered by §172.602(b)(3)(iii). This section permits the\nuse of a separate document and identifies \"an emergency response guidance\ndocument\" as an example. While the text goes on to identify complete documents (i.e.,\nICAO and IMQ documents) that may be used to satisfy the document requirement,\nthere is nothing in the textthat would preclud~ the use of an excerpt (i.e., an f\\IAERG\nguide page) from satisfying the regulation.\nUnder §172.602(b)(3)(iii),the descriptlon ofthe hazardousmateria! on the shipping·\npaper must be cross referenced with the emergency response information in the\ndoc:ument. A C911'li11PIJ manner of cross referencing is to include a reference to the\nguide page on the shipp;ng paper .. The guide page in tl!rn has the guide r.umber at the\n• DGAC is a leading international membership organization representing all aspects of the hazardous materials/dangerous goods transportation industry. •\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n2\nNovember 9, 2012\nRe: DGAC Request for Reconsideration of Interpretation #12-0068\ntop of the page. !t is our opinion that providing the emergency response information in\nthis manner fully satisfies the requirements in §172.602(b)(3)(iii). There is nothing to\nsuggest that the basic description and if applicable, the technical name of the hazardous\nmaterial must be included on the ERG guide page to satisfy the cross referencing\nrequirement.\nOn the basis of the above, we request that you reconsider interpretation #12-0068 and\nthat you clarify that a reference to the ERG guide page on the shipping paper in\nassuciation with the basic description is an acceptable way of providing cross\nreferencing when an ERG guide page is used to satisfy §172.602(b)(3).\nWe appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please contact me directly if you have\nany questions.\nVaughn Arthur\nPresident","truncated":false,"body_characters":6037}