{"operation":"document","citation":"14-0183","title":"Denton Police Department — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2014-12-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"14-0183 response to Denton Police Department concerning 172.302, 172.331, 172.332, 172.504, 172.514, 172.516.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0183.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0183.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0183","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2014/140183.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 2 3 2014\nWilliam Burson\nDirector, Transportation\nDenton Police Department\n601 E Hickory St. Ste. E\nDenton, Texas 76205\nRef. No.: 14-0183\nDear Mr. Burson:\nThis responds to your October 3, 2014 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the marking and\nplacarding requirements of transport vehicles containing Intermediate Bulk Containers\n(IBCs). Your questions are paraphrased and answered below.\nQ 1. You provide photographs of an IBC which is labeled in accordance with\n§ 172.514(c)(4) and marked with the identification number in accordance with the\nsize requirements of § 172.302(b )(2). The IBC is loaded on a trailer and the\nidentification numbers on the IBCs are visible from the front and back of the trailer.\nYou ask if the identification numbers must additionally be displayed on the transport\nvehicle in accordance with § 172.331 (c)?\nAl. The answer is yes. For an IBC that is labeled instead of placarded,§ 172.514(c)(4)\nallows display of the proper shipping name and identification number in accordance\nwith the size requirements of§ 172.302(b)(2) in place of the identification number\non an orange panel or placard, or white square-on-point specified in§ 172.302(a).\nSection 172.331(c) states when the identification number markings on the IBC\nspecified in§ 172.302(a) are not visible, the transport must be marked as required by\n§ 172.332. In your scenario, the IBC is marked in accordance with§ 172.302(b )(2)\nand not§ 172.302(a). Therefore, the transport vehicle must also be marked with the\nidentification numbers in the appropriate orange panel, placard or white square-on-\npoint configuration as required by§ 172.332.\nQ2. You provide a photograph of a \"placard tree\" where two, double-sided\nplacards are mounted to a post facing opposite directions. You ask whether this\nconfiguration meets the requirements of§ 172.504 (a) to be \"placarded on each side\nand each end.\" You further ask whether letters of interpretation Ref. No. 10-0075\nand 09-0109 create conflicting guidance with letter of interpretation Ref. No. 13-\n0086.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA2. The answer to both of your questions is no. When placarding is required by\n§ 172,504 ofthe HMR, a transport vehicle must be placarded \"on each side and each\nend.\" In the scenario you describe, both placards are located on a single end of the\ntransport vehicle. Therefore, the placards are not applied to each side and each end\nas required by § 172.504.\nThe language you reference in letters Ref. No. 10-0075 and 09-0109 addresses the\nvisibility requirements specified in§ 172.516. Both letters describe scenarios where\nthe placards have already met the requirement in§ 172.504(a) specifying that they\nmust be adhered to each side and end of the transport vehicle. The letters discuss\nwhether the specific placement on each side and end meets the visibility\nrequirements further specified in§ 172.516. Letter Ref. No. 13-0086 is the only\nletter you reference which addresses whether placement of a placard meets the\nrequirement specified in§ 172.504(a) for placement of a placard on the sides and\nends of a vehicle. Placards on a transport vehicle must meet the requirements\nspecified in both§§ 172.504 and 172.516. Therefore, the letters do not provide\nconflicting guidance.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nSubject:\nAttachments:\nCiccarone, Michael CTR (PHMSA)\nFriday, October 03, 2014 12:54 PM\nHazmat Interps\nFW: Interpretation Request; HM Communications; Markings & Placards\n2014-10-02_140525.JPG; 2014-10-02_140229.JPG; 2014-10-02_140326.JPG; 2014-10-02_\n140405.JPG; 2014-10-02_140450.JPG\nShante and Alice,\nPlease submit this for a formal letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nMike\nFrom: Burson, William S [mailto:Scott.Burson@cityofdenton.com]\nSent: Friday, October 03, 2014 10:22 AM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter\nSubject: Interpretation Request; HM Communications; Markings & Placards\nPHMSA,\nI am requesting interpretations of the HMRs pertaining to hazardous materials in highway transport. The\nHMRs in question relate to hazardous materials communications; marking requirements and placard\nrequirements.\nScenario [Please refer to the five photos attached.]:\nA company pickup truck is pulling an open-sided utility trailer in a domestic shipment. [The truck does not\ndisplay placards or UN identification numbers and does not factor further into this scenario.] Upon the trailer\nare four IBCs of hazardous materials. The IBCs are secured to the trailer by ratchet straps in a manner that\ncauses two adjacent sides of each IBC to be hidden from view. Conversely, two adjacent sides of each IBC are\nvisible to a side and an end of the trailer.\nForward of the trailer's cargo bed and attached to the trailer is a post that supports what is\ncolloquially known as a \"placard tree\". The placard tree displays hazard class 3 flammable liquid placards to\nthe front, rear and both sides of the trailer.\nInspection of the IBCs reveals that they are all less than 1,000-gallons in volume. Three are nearly full\nwith UN1230 while the fourth contains only residue of UN1993. Both commodities are hazard class 3. As each\nIBC has an opposing side that is hidden from view it cannot be ascertained whether the IBCs are in compliance\nwith the marking requirements of 172.302(a)(2). [For practical purposes, let's presume the IBCs are in\ncompliance with 172.302(a)(2).] The visible ends of each IBC displays hazard class 3 flammable liquid labels\nand the subsidiary class 6 toxic labels. Stenciled on each IBC in l-inch characters is the UN number for its\ncommodity, however, the IBC containing UN1993 has its identification number obscured from view by a\nratchet strap.\nFrom the left or right side of the trailer the only hazardous materials communication visible is the left\nand right facing placards on the placard tree. From the front, one placard faces forward and two IBCs display\nmarkings of \"UN-1230\". To the rear, one placard faces rearward along with a \"UN-1230\" marking on the back\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nleft IBC. As stated in the previous paragraph the \"UN-1993\" marking on the back right IBC is obscured\nnecessitating vehicle markings per 172.331(c).\nIt appears in this scenario that 172.302(a)(2) requires the company to mark the IBCs with the applicable UN\nidentification number on two opposing sides of each IBC, which we will assume. Further, it appears that\n172.302(b)(2) requires the UN identification markings [characters] be a minimum of 0.16-inches in width and\nl-inch in height, which we will also assume was satisfied in this instance. However, in this scenario the\ncompany has opted to label the IBCs instead of applying placards, utilizing 172.336(d). 172.336(d) provides\nthat, per 172.514(c), an IBC may be labeled in lieu of placards and in such instances, again per 172.336(d), may\nbe marked in accordance with 172.301(a)(l). Yet, 172.301(a)(l) provides for markings characters at a\nminimum of 0.47-inches in height. And yet further, the transitional provision of 172.301(a)(l)(i) allows for no\nminimum marking size requirement on domestic shipments until January 1, 2017.\n[Note: 172.336(d) references 172.514(c) while contemporaneously allowing for markings size\nrequirements in accordance with 172.301(a)(l), while 172.514(c) itself allows only for the marking size\nrequirements accorded by 172.302(b)(2).]\nMarkings Question 1: What constitutes a \"visible\" identification marking on an IBC?\nIf 172.301(a)(l)(i) allows [albeit, temporarily] an identification marking with no minimum size, it seems that a\nvery small marking may be employed on an IBC so long as it can be seen in some unspecified manner.\n172.331(c) states an IBC whose identification number is \"not visible\" while being transported upon a\nvehicle requires the transport vehicle to display the appropriate identification number on both ends and both\nsides in a manner prescribed by 172.332(a). Yet, 172.331(c) does not provide guidance on what constitutes a\nvisible marking. [If an observer stands 10-feet to the side of a vehicle and can see where on an IBC a UN\nidentification marking is located but cannot read it because the font is very small, does that mean the marking\nis still visible and considered an effective communication while on a transport vehicle?]\nMarkings Question 2: Is an IBC that is marked on two opposing sides per 172.302(a)(2) required to display\nthose very same identification markings when upon a transport vehicle to prevent invoking transport vehicle\nmarking requirements per 172.331(c)? And, if so, do the IBC markings have to be displayed facing the sides of\nthe transport vehicle, or can they be displayed facing the front and back of the vehicle just so long as the\nmarkings are on opposing sides of the IBC?\nIn the scenario provided, none of the IBCs display UN identification markings on two opposing sides as one IBC\nis always covering the opposing side of an IBC directly in front or behind. However, the two IBCs on the left\nside of the trailer have the same identification number, so even though they are two IBCs, the same\nidentifying information is being communicated in two opposing directions just the same as if either the front\nor the rear IBC was being transported solely. Markings Question 2, above, seeks clarification whether these\ntwo packages can combine to communicate the same information in opposing directions and whether that\ncommunication must be along the transport vehicle's lateral-axis or allowed along the longitudinal-axis [as\ndepicted in the photos].\nPlacards Question 1: Is the use of a \"placard tree\", as depicted, an approved method of meeting the\nrequirements of 172.504(a). specifically being \"placarded on each side and each end\"?\nThere appears to be several Interpretations to consider in this matter:\n1.) Interpretation 13-0086 addresses a \"two-sided\" placard and found that such an arrangement did not\nsatisfy 172.504(a)'s \"each side and each end\" requirement.\n2.) Interpretation 10-0075 (emphasized further in Interpretation 10-0254) stated placards adhered to the\noverpack of a palletized load was sufficient so long as the communications were clearly visible on all four sides\nand were to specification.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n3.) vehicle\".\nFurther, Interpretation 09-0109 stated a \"placard does not have to be located at the outer perimeter of a\nI do not contend that these interpretations are conflicting, just not exacting enough to be applied\nconsistently by roadside enforcement personnel. It concerns me as an investigator when asked by a company\nto divine and articulate an exact distance between zero (the distance non-existing between the front and rear\nsides of a two-sided placard on a vehicle) and four-feet (the approximate length of a load pallet) as the\nstandard by which 172.504(a) is complied.\nPerhaps I will find the difference in the interpretations, and the distance between zero and four feet,\nis the object to which a placard is applied, a transport vehicle versus the load itself.\nThank you for your consideration in these matters.\nRespectfully,\nWm Scott Burson\nProgram Manager- Commercial Vehicle Enforcement\nDenton Police Department\n601 E Hickory St, Ste E\nDenton, Texas 76205\nMain: 940/349-8181\nOffice: 940/349-7851\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>","truncated":false,"body_characters":11676}