{"operation":"document","citation":"21-0107","title":"Amanda White — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2022-02-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"21-0107 concerning 171.2, 171.8, 178.704.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0107.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0107.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0107","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/76266/210107.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nFebruary 3, 2022\nMs. Amanda White\n1125 Harvey Road\nAuburn, WA 98002\nReference No. 21-0107\nDear Ms. White:\nThis letter is in response to your November 12, 2021, email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to an enforcement\naction regarding carrier responsibilities and intermediate bulk container (“IBC”) specifications.\nSpecifically, you state that one of your company’s drivers was cited for a violation of\n§ 178.704(e), which states that for each IBC containing a liquid, a secondary means of sealing\nthe discharge aperture must also be provided, e.g., by a blank flange or equivalent device. You\nstate that during the COVID-19 public health emergency, your company’s drivers have not been\nallowed inside shippers’ warehouses, and that your drivers take possession of the shipments after\nthey have been packaged and loaded into sealed trailers. You ask—given this scenario—whether\nthe carrier, the shipper, or both entities are in violation of the HMR requirements.\nIt is the opinion of this Office that—barring additional information pertinent to the scenario you\ndescribe—the person preparing the hazardous materials packages for transportation and loading\nthose packages in the motor vehicle is in violation of the general IBC requirements specified in\n§ 178.704(e) (i.e., in this instance, the shipper).\nAs specified in § 171.2(f), no person may transport hazardous materials unless they are\ntransported in accordance with the HMR. In the absence of participating in the loading operation\nor having access to the loaded trailer, it is assumed that the carrier would rely on the shipping\npaper and the accompanying certification that the packages are in proper condition for\ntransportation (i.e., using a secondary means of sealing the discharge aperture on the IBCs).\nSpecifically, the carrier may rely on information provided by the offeror of the hazardous\nmaterials unless the carrier knows—or a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and\nexercising reasonable care would have known—that the information provided by the offeror is\nincorrect. (See § 171.8 for the definition of a “person who offers or offeror.”) Additionally, the\ncarrier may not ignore readily apparent information that would indicate the packages are not\nproperly sealed.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nFinally, it should be noted that whenever a hazardous material has not been shipped in\ncompliance with the HMR, the Department of Transportation will attempt to bring an\nenforcement proceeding against the person who first caused the transportation of the\nnoncomplying shipment. See the formal interpretation of carrier responsibility when\naccepting hazardous material for transportation in commerce (June 4, 1998; 63 FR 30411)1\n.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n1 See formal interpretation at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-06-04/pdf/98-14561.pdf\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nLarson\nFrom: Raynor, T\"Mia (PHMSA)\nTo: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Interpretation Response\nDate: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 5:03:36 PM\nAttachments: image002.png\n21-0107\nHello,\nPlease see below.\nThanks,\nT’Mia Raynor\nWebmaster, Office of the PHMSA CIO\nUS Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, D.C., 20590\nOffice: 202.366.9818 ◊ Mobile: 202.580.9447\nPHMSA Home | LinkedIn | Twitter | HAZMAT | OPS\nFrom: Amanda white <amandawhiteoc@gmail.com>\nSent: Friday, November 12, 2021 5:02 PM\nTo: PHMSA Website Manager <PHMSAWebsiteManager@dot.gov>\nSubject: Interpretation Response\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or\nopen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nHello ,\nI need an interpretation regarding 178.704(e) IBC bottom discharge valve protection violation.\nIn the particular case where I am requesting interpretation, the driver got a violation ,\nnamely , Secondary means of sealing discharge aperture (blank flange or similar device)\nnot provided. So as a carrier that transports Hazardous Materials , is the driver\nresponsible for this , take into account that in the context of the pandemic COVID-19 , warehouses\ndon't allow drivers there , allowing the driver to take the cargo after sealing it.\nIs it fair that a motor carrier company that transports hazardous materials is accused of his alleged\nviolation ?\nThank you\nIrina","truncated":false,"body_characters":4747}