{"operation":"document","citation":"14-0206","title":"Port of Tucson — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2015-02-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"14-0206 response to Port of Tucson concerning 173.31.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0206.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0206.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0206","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2015/140206.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashington. DC\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\n20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nFEB 1 8 2015\nMr. Bryan Slagle\nPort of Tucson\n6964 E. Century Park Dr.\nTucson, AZ 85756\nReference No. 14-0206\nDear Mr. Slagle:\nThis is in response to your October 24, 2014 emails requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) relating to tank car loading and\nunloading requirements. In your incoming request you note that each section of track at your\ntransloading facility can have multiple tank cars set out in groups to be transloaded by up to\nfive different transload companies that access the designated transload area. You ask if\n§ 173.31(g)(1) requires the separate transload entities mentioned above to be protected from\neach other by an additional derail, lined and blocked switch, portable bumper block, and or\nother equivalent security equipment?\nThe answer to your question is no. In accordance with § 173.31(g)(1) access to the track\nmust be secured during loading and unloading operations, but there is no additional\nrequirement to further isolate tank cars within a transloading facility based on the fact that\nthey are being loaded or unloaded by separate entities.\nI trust this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact this office.\nSincerely,\nDuane A. Penl\nDuane A. Pfund\nInternational Standards Coordinator\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nWelab\n(73.31 (9)G)\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nCiccarone, Michael CTR (PHMSA)\nFriday, October 24, 2014 4:31 PM\nTo:\nSubject:\nHazmat Interps\nFW: Request for Letter of Interpretation of 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(1) - Port of Tucson\nAttachments:\nGrade Level Track Photo 1 jpg; Grade Level Track Photo 2jpg\nShante/Alice,\nPlease submit this for a formal letter for interpretation.\nThanks,\nMike\nFrom: bryan@portoftucson.com [mailto:bryan@portoftucson.com]\nSent: Friday, October 24, 2014 4:11 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nCc: Suzie, Hollis; Matt, Levin\nSubject: Fwd: Request for Letter of Interpretation of 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(1) - Port of Tucson\nTo Whom It May Concern;\nI failed to reference a previous interpretation that I believe applies to the question below.\nYour letter of interpretation Ref. No.: 14-0092 states: the intent of 173.31(g) is to warn rail crews of the general\nrail transportation system of the status of a particular car or series of cars on a facility's rail system, and prevent\nthem from attaching to or moving the rail cars when it is unsafe to do so.\nIt would appear that 173.31(g) does not address the actions of singular or multiple entities operating on the track\nthat is locked and secured\nAgain sorry for the addition.\nSincerely,\nBryan Slagle\nPort of Tucson\n520-574-1320 office\n520-405-1477 mobile\n•-- Original Message --.\nFrom: \"bryan@portoftucson.com\" < bryan@portoftucson.com>\nTo: infocntr@dot.gov\nCc: \"Matt, Levin\" < matt@portoftucson.net>, \"Suzie, Hollis\" < ops@portoftucson.net>\nDate: October 24, 2014 at 11:31 AM\nSubject: Request for Letter of Interpretation of 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(1) - Port of Tucson\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nTo Whom It May Concern;\nI am writing for clarification and interpretation of 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(1) and 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(3) as it\npertains to the configuration of the rail safety equipment in place at the trans-load facility at the Port of\nTucson in Tucson, Arizona.\nI will try to provide as much detail as I can to help with understanding our question for interpretation.\nThe Port of Tucson currently has two tracks that are utilized for trans-loading of rail tank cars. Both\ntracks run parallel to each other and are 1300' in length. These tracks are grade level with a 0% slope,\nand the rail head is all that is exposed to eliminate trip hazards and to allow movement in and around\nthese tracks as needed. There is no exposed rail in the trans-load area.\nEach 1300' track can have multiple tank cars set out in groups (by commodity) to be trans loaded by up\nto five different trans-load companies that access the designated trans-load area at different times during\nthe day or week. Each of these trans-loaders provides wheel blocking and signage to comply with all of\nthe requirements for Hazmat trans-loading.\n49 CFR 173.31 (g)(1) states: The unloader must secure access to the track to prevent entry by other rail\nequipment, including motorized service vehicles. Derails, lined and blocked switches, portable bumper\nblocks, and other equivalent security equipment would be examples of this type of prevention.\nAdditionally, 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(3) states: At least one wheel on the tank car being trans-loaded must\nbe blocked against movement in both directions, and the hand brake must be set.\nBoth trans-load tracks are secured and locked out from the Port of Tucson rail system by a locked switch\nto comply with 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(1) . When being trans-loaded, brakes are set on every tank car and\nwheels are chalked/blocked on each end to comply with 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(3).\nTo our interpretation question:\nAt times there are two entities trans-loading at the same time on the same track. The tank cars each\nentity are trans-loading and their own equipment is separated by more than 100.\nThe question that has been posed as pertains to 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(1) is as follows: Do these separate\ntrans-load entities need to be protected from each other by an additional derail, lined and blocked switch,\nportable bumper block, and or other equivalent security equipment?\nThe reason we desire interpretation is two fold. First, the tracks themselves are locked out to insure their\nis no additional equipment or motorized equipment can enter the trans-load area. We feel this complies\nwith 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(1). Second we see no mention in 49 CFR 173.31 (g)(1) of a need for\nadditional derails, lined and blocked switches portable bumper blocks, and or other equivalent security\nequipment when there are two different entities trans-loading on the same track.\nSince all the trans-loaders that access these tank cars provide their own signage and locks for the locked\nswitch, we believe they are in compliance, and there is no need for additional safety equipment. But we\nare asking for an interpretation on this if possible.\nLastly, if additional equipment is needed between each individual entity, and it is determined it must be\na derail or portable bumper, we feel this may cause an undue financial obligation to install this\nequipment.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nIf further clarification is needed, please contact me any time.\nSincerely,\nBryan Slagle\nPort of Tucson\n520-574-1320 office\n520-405-1477 mobile\nbryan@portoftucson.com\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>","truncated":false,"body_characters":6701}