{"operation":"document","citation":"14-0138R","title":"Polytek Development Corp. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2015-06-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"14-0138R response to Polytek Development Corp. concerning 172.202, 172.203, 172.602.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0138r.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0138r.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0138r","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2015/140138R.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\nWashington, DC 20590\n1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.\nPipeline and Hazardous\nAdministration\nMaterials Safety\nMs. Cynthia Salisbury\nJUN 0 2 2015\nRegulatory Affairs\nPolytek Development Corp.\n55 Hilton Street\nEaston, PA 18042\nRef. No. 14-0138R\nDear Ms. Salisbury:\nThis responds to your July 16, 2014 request for clarification on emergency response\ninformation requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n171-180). Specifically, you state that you ship hazardous materials under generic shipping\ndescription IN; and invide the tally gazardes pons ace good mRS I as part of\nthe description; and you verify that the carrier has the ERG in the cab of the truck. You ask\nif this complies with the § 172.602(b) emergency response information requirements. You\nalso inquire whether the most current edition of the ERG must be carried.\nThe combination of providing an ERG guide number with a hazardous material description\nand verifying carriage of an ERG in the carrier's vehicle(s) satisfies the HMR requirements\n(see § 172.602(b)(3)(iii)). Additionally, the most up-to-date emergency response\ninformation should be used to satisfy the Part 172, Subpart G requirements. Thus, the edition\nof the ERG used to satisfy the emergency response information requirements for your\nshipment should contain guidance that is most relevant to current emergency response\npractices.\nSection 172.602(a)(1) states that the emergency response information must contain the basic\ndescription and technical name of the hazardous material as required by §§ 172.202 and\n172.203(k). Section 172.602(b)(3) requires that the emergency response information is\npresented (i) on a shipping paper; (ii) in a document, other than a shipping paper, that\nincludes both the basic description and technical name of the hazardous material; or (iii)\nrelated to the information on a shipping paper, in a separate document (e.g., an emergency\nresponse guidance document), in a manner that cross-references the description of the\nhazardous material on the shipping paper with the emergency response information\ncontained in the document. Thus, your method satisfies the third option for presenting\nemergency response information.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact this\nOffice at (202) 366-8553.\nSincerely,\nActing Chief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nBoothe\n172.602 Cb)\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nmergency response\n4 - 0/38 (\nFrom:\nCiccarone, Michael CTR (PHMSA).\nSent:\nTo:\nWednesday, July 16, 2014 12:32 PM\nHazmat Interps\nSubject:\nFW: Request for Letter of Interpretation Regarding Emergency Response Information\nShante and Alice,\nPlease submit this for a formal letter of interpretation. Ms. Salisbury discussed this issue with Adam Lucas in the HMIC.\nThanks,\nMike\nFrom: Cynthia Salisbury [mailto:csalisbury@polytek.com]\nSent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:17 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSubject: Request for Letter of Interpretation Regarding Emergency Response Information\nTo Whom It May Concern:\nI am writing to clarify Emergency Response Information (172.602(b)) requirements for hazardous materials covered by a\nshipping name with a G in column 1 of the 172.101 (e.g., n.o.s. or other generic shipping names). As you know, for these\nmaterials, a technical name be included with the basic shipping description (49 CFR 172.203(k)). For these hazardous\nmaterials, do we fulfill the requirement for Emergency Response Information by including the proper Emergency\nResponse Guidebook (ERG) Guide Number on the shipping paper AND verifying that the carrier has the ERG\nreadily available in the cab of the truck?\nFor example, if shipping paper includes the following information: UN3082, Environmentally hazardous substance,\nliquid, n.o.s. (butyl benzyl phthalate), 9, III, ERG #171; AND we verify that the carrier has the ERG in the cab, does that\nfulfill 172.602 (b)?\nDoes it matter it the ERG in the cab is not the most current edition (e.g., 2008)?\nThank you in advance for clarification.\nBest Regards,\nCynthia Salisbury\nRegulatory Affairs | Polytek Development Corp. | www.polytek.com\n[e] csalisbury@polytek.com | [p] 610.559.8620 x112 | [p] 800.858.5990\nPolytek\nDevelopment Corp.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nPipeline and Hazardous\nAdministration\nMaterials Safety\nOCT 2 9 2014\nMs. Cynthia Salisbury\nRegulatory Affairs\nPolytek Development Corp.\n55 Hilton Street\nEaston, PA 18042\nRef. No. 14-0138\nDear Ms. Salisbury:\nThis responds to your July 16, 2014 request for clarification on emergency response\ninformation requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n171-180). Specifically, you state that you ship hazardous materials under generic shipping\ndescription \"UN3082, Environmentally hazardous substance, liquid, n.o.s. (butyl benzyl\nphthalate), 9, III,\" and include the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) #171 as part of the\ndescription; and you verify that the carrier has the ERG in the cab of the truck. You ask if this\ncomplies with the § 172.602(b) emergency response information requirements. You also\ninquire whether the most current edition of the ERG must be carried:\nThe combination of providing an ERG guide number with a hazardous material description\nand verifying carriage of an ERG in the carrier's vehicle(s) satisfies the HMR requirements\n(see § 172.602(b)(3)(iii)). Additionally, the most current edition is required as it includes the\nmost current response information.\nSection 172.602(a)(1) states that the emergency response information must contain the basic\ndescription and technical name of the hazardous material as required by §§ 172.202 and\n172.203(k). Section 172.602(b)(3) requires that the emergency response information is\npresented (i) on a shipping paper; (ii) in a document, other than a shipping paper, that includes\nboth the basic description and technical name of the hazardous material; or (ill) related to the\ninformation on a shipping paper, in a separate document (e.g., an emergency response\nguidance document), in a manner that cross-references the description of the hazardous\nmaterial on the shipping paper with the emergency response information contained in the\ndocument. Thus, your method satisfies the third option for presenting emergency response\ninformation.\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact this Office\nat (202) 366-8553.\nSincerely,\nActing Chief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nBoothe, Deborah (PHMSA)\nSent:\nFrom:\nDerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA)\nSubject:\nTo:\nBoothe, Deborah (PHMSA)\nTuesday, December 23, 2014 10:02 AM\nAttachments:\nFW: Interp #14-0138\n140138 ERI requirements.pdf\nDebbie,\nEven though we got FMCSA sign-off, Paul is worried about the letter especially that carriers may be sited for not carrying\nthe most current version of the ERG even if the language from an older version satisfies the ERI requirements of the\nHMR. He's also worried about the cost of purchasing new editions. We need to discuss this internally and may need to\nmassage the language and reissue the latter.\nSincerely,\nDirk Der Kinderer\nFrom: Benedict, Robert (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 9:01 AM\nSubject: FW: Interp #14-0138\nTo: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA)\nFYI.\nFrom: Bomgardner, Paul (FMCSA)\nSent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 9:00 AM\nTo: Benedict, Robert (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Interp #14-0138\nCc: Ford, David (FMCSA)\nHi Rob:\nPlease see the interpretation attached. Both Dave and I believe that the statement about the carrier having to have the\nlatest edition of the ERG is in error. Historically, all that was needed was a version that had the information required for\nthe load. Take gasoline or acetone, for example. Response to incidents involving those materials really hasn't changed\nin ages. So, why would there be a need for the latest version? Also, I see a bit of a problem in that the interpretation is\npretty close to rulemaking by requiring the newest version, which comes at a hefty cost to industry.\nAnyway, might I suggest that the sentence be revised to read that the version of the ERG used must contain the\ninformation that adequately covers the HM being transported. That is what the rule requires.\nRegards,\nPaul\nFrom: Ford, David (FMCSA)\nSent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 8:50 AM\nSubject: Interp #14-0138\nTo: Bomgardner, Paul (FMCSA)\nPaul,\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nThis interp states that you must have the most current ERG in the vehicle. I believe that is incorrect. That is not\nspecifically stated in the regulations, and previous interpretations have said that as long as the response information is\naccurate, an older ERG may be used. Can you ask PHMSA to take a second look at this?\nThanks\nDavid W. Ford\nHazardous Materials Program Manager\nUSDOT/FMCSA/Southern Service Center\n404-327-7374\ndavid.ford@dot.gov\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":8991}