{"operation":"document","citation":"14-0230","title":"The Chlorine Institute — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2015-09-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"14-0230 response to The Chlorine Institute concerning 177.834.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0230.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0230.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0230","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2015/140230.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nof Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nAdministration\nMaterials Safety\nSEP 1 5 2015\nMs. Robyn Kinsley\nDirector, Transportation\nThe Chlorine Institute\n1300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 525\nArlington, VA 22209*\nRef. No. 14-0230\nDear Ms. Kinsley:\nThis responds to your November 18, 2014 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the securement of\nIntermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs). Your questions are paraphrased and answered as\nfollows:\nQ1. In regard to § 177.834(a), how does PHMSA define \"relative motion between\npackages\"?\nAl.\nPHMSA does not define \"relative motion between packages.\" Under the HMR,\npermanently attached to a motor vehicle to be secured against shifting, including\n§ 177.834(a) requires any hazardous material (hazmat) package that is not\nrelative motion between packages, within the vehicle on which it is being transported\nunder conditions normally incident to transportation. Conditions normally incident to\ntransportation include vehicle starting, stopping, cornering, accident avoidance, and\nvaried road conditions. Thus, the securement of hazmat packages requires that such\npackages do not shift when experiencing these conditions. It is the opinion of this\nOffice that \"shifting\" would involve a change in the place or position of the package\nfrom the original place or position that it occupied when it was loaded onto the motor\nvehicle.\nSection 393.100(c) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) is the\ngeneral securement requirement for all types of cargo. It is a safety performance\nstandard intended to prohibit shifting of cargo that would compromise the vehicle's\nstability or maneuverability. The requirements in the HMR § 177.834(a) represent a\nhigher standard of safety for packages containing hazardous materials, where securing\nthe packages against motion is necessary to prevent damage to the packages\nthemselves, ensure their integrity, and prevent a release of the contained material.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ2. . Does \"relative motion between packages\" mean \"zero motion\"?\nA2.\nNo. In terms of preventing motion of the package(s) during transportation,\nsecurement against shifting and relative motion between packages in accordance with\n§ 177.834(a) requires that the package(s) be secured against shifting (see Al above) as\nwell as secured against relative motion to the greatest extent practicable.\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 3>>>\n\nBoothe\n177.8346)\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\n393.100(c)\nFrom:\nCiccarone, Michael CTR (PHMSA)\nPackaging Seneral\nSent:\nWednesday, November 19, 2014 1:43 PM\nTo:\nHazmat Interps\n14-0230\nSubject:\nFW: Requests for Interpretation\nAttachments:\n2014-10-18 - PHMSA Interpretation Request - CL2 TC PRD Tell-Tale.pdf; 2014-10-18 -\nPHMSA Interpretation Request - Package Securement.pdf\nShante/Alice,\nPlease submit these for formal letters of interpretation. Note that there are two separate requests attached.\nThanks,\nMike\nFrom: Robyn Kinsley [mailto:rkinsley@CL2.com]\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter\nSent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:30 AM\nSubject: Requests for Interpretation\nPlease find attached two requests for interpretation from The Chlorine Institute. Please do not hesitate to contact me if\nyou have any questions.\nRegards,\nRobyn Kinsley\nwww.chlorineinstitute.org\nRobyn Kinsley | Director, Transportation | The Chlorine Institute | Arlington, VA | (703.894.4123 | rkinsley@CL2.com /\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nTHE CHLORINE INSTITUTE\nTHE CHLORINE INSTITUTE\n1300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 525, Arlington, VA 22209\nTel 703-894-4140\nFax 703-894-4130\nwww.chlorineinstitute.org\nNovember 18, 2014\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nATTN: PHH-10\nUS Department of Transportation\nEast Building\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nRE: Request for Interpretation - Highway Package Securement\nThe Chlorine Institute (\"CI\" or the \"Institute\") is a 193 member, not-for-profit trade association\nof chlorine producers worldwide, as well as chlorine packagers, distributors, users, and\nsuppliers. The Institute's North American Producer members account for more than 93 percent\nof the total chlorine production capacity of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The Institute's\nmission chemicals, namely chlorine, sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide (hereafter\nreferred to as \"caustic\"), hydrochloric acid and sodium hypochlorite, are used throughout North\nAmerica's economy and are crucial to the protection of public health.\nMany of Cl's members transport the Class 8 corrosive products noted above in bulk by highway\neither in cargo tanks or intermodal bulk containers (or \"IBCs\"). Recently some questions have\nbeen raised with regard to transporting IBCs and, in particular, proper load securement of those\npackages. There appears to be inconsistent language between PHMSA's 49 CFR 177.834(a) and\nFMCSA's 49 CFR 393.100(c) on which our members would like clarification.\n49 CFR 177.834(a) states:\n\"Any package containing any hazardous material, not permanently attached to a motor\nvehicle, must be secured against shifting, including relative motion between packages,\nwithin the vehicle on which it is being transported, under conditions normally incident to\ntransportation. Packages having valves or other fittings must be loaded in a manner to\nminimize the likelihood of damage during transportation.\"\n49 CFR 393.100(c) states:\n\"Prevention against shifting of load. Cargo must be contained, immobilized or secured in\naccordance with this subpart to prevent shifting upon or within the vehicle to such an\nextent that the vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected.\"\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nCI Request for Interpretation - Package Securement\nNovember 18, 2014\nPage 2 of 2\nThe bolded and underlined phrases in the above regulations are what appear to be\ninconsistent. While the intent of §177.834(a) appears to not permit any shifting or movement\nof the packages, §393.100(c) appears to allow a minor amount of movement which does not\naffect the vehicle's stability. Because of the inconsistent language, the intent of the\nrequirements for hazardous materials packages is uncertain. Specifically, it is uncertain what is\nmeant by \"relative motion between packages.\" Therefore, our question is:\nHow does PHMSA define \"relative motion between packages?\"\nDoes it mean enough motion between the packages that adversely affects the vehicle's stability\nguidelines on how to secure packages in order to prevent affecting the vehicle's stability and\nand maneuverability (per FMCSA's rule)? If so, how is that quantified or measured? Are there\nmaneuverability?\nOr, does it essentially mean zero motion/movement? If so, we recommend that PHMSA change\nthe language in the regulations to state just that.\nWe have reviewed various interpretations and previous rulemakings PHMSA and FMCSA have\nissued in the past, but they do not seem to answer our specific questions. Our members are\nstewards of the safe handling of hazardous materials packages, and they strive to achieve\ncompliance with the hazardous materials transportation regulations. Further clarification on\nthis particular issue would greatly help that effort.\nThank you for your time on this matter.\nSincerely,\nReye Kindley\nRobyn Kinsley\nDirector, Transportation","truncated":false,"body_characters":7542}