{"operation":"document","citation":"24-0043","title":"Usher Transport Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2024-08-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"24-0043 response to Usher Transport Inc. concerning 172.328.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0043.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0043.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0043","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2024-08/240043.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nAugust 22, 2024\nJed Hudson\nSafety Manager\nUsher Transport Inc.\n3801 Shanks Lane\nLouisville, KY 40216\nReference No. 24-0043\nDear Mr. Hudson:\nThis letter is in response to your May 29, 2024, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the “emergency shutoff”\nmarking on cargo tanks. You provided photographs of a cargo tank motor vehicle (CTMV) that\nhas two markings in separate locations. The primary marking is located directly beside the\nmanually-activated remote shutoff device on the rear-end tank protection device, but the marking\nis damaged. The secondary marking is located on the right rear side of the cargo tank, pointing\nvertically downward in a manner you believe is in an area immediately adjacent to the manually-\nactivated remote shutoff device. You also note a previous letter of interpretation\n(Reference No. 17-0029), which you believe represents your current situation regarding the\nplacement of the secondary “emergency shutoff” marking on the cargo tank. Acknowledging that\nthe primary marking is weathered and damaged such that it does not satisfy the marking\nrequirement, you ask whether the secondary marking satisfies the requirement of § 172.328(d) to\nhave an “emergency shutoff” marking “located in an area immediately adjacent to the means of\nclosure.”\nThe HMR do not define the term “adjacent,” but a common dictionary definition of the term\n“adjacent” means to be nearby or immediately preceding or following. Based on the photographs\nyou provided, it is the opinion of this Office that the secondary “emergency shutoff” marking\nlocated on the right rear side of the cargo tank does not meet the intent of § 172.328(d) because\nthe marking is not in “an area immediately adjacent (emphasis added) to the means of closure.”\nMoreover, the secondary marking has an arrow pointing vertically downward towards a section\nof the CTMV on the back side of the framing on which the rear placard is displayed that does\n\n<<>>\n\nnot accurately point towards the means of closure of the shutoff device, which is located at the\nrear of the CTMV below the placard. Please note that the position where the damaged primary\nmarking is located would meet the intent of § 172.328(d).\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nDirk Der Kinderen\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nVore\n24-0043\nJones, Jessie Jane CTR (PHMSA)\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent: Friday, June 7, 2024 1:41 PM\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nCc: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Letter for Interpretation\nAttachments: 170029 (2).pdf; PHMSA Letter Emegerency Shut-Off Marking.pdf\nFollow Up Flag: Follow up\nFlag Status: Flagged\nHi Alice,\nPlease see the a ached interpreta on request.\nLet us know if you need anything.\nRegards,\n-Breanna\nFrom: Jed Hudson \nSent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 1:24 PM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter \nSubject: Letter for Interpretation\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links\nor open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nTo Whom It May Concern,\nPlease see attached letters and photos for interpretation.\nRespectfully,\nJed Hudson\nSafety Manager | Safety & Risk Management | CDS\nT: (502)449-4000\nM: (859)661-2034\njhudson@ushertransport.com - www.ushertransport.com\n3801 Shanks Lane, Louisville, KY 40216 USA\n\"In valor there is hope.\" - Publius Cornelius Tacitus\n1\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\nSafety Manager\nThatcher Transportation, Inc.\n1905 Fortune Road\nSalt Lake City, UT 84104\nReference No. 17-0029\nDear Mr. Olsen:\nThis letter is in response to your March 21, 2017, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the emergency shutoff\nmarking on cargo tanks. You note that § 172.328(d) specifies the emergency shutoff marking\nmust be immediately adjacent to the emergency closure device. You state that you received a\nviolation for the emergency shutoff marking not being close enough to the emergency closure\ndevice and include in your email a photo showing the marking approximately 4 inches right of\nand 12 inches above the device. Specifically, you ask how close the emergency shutoff marking\nmust be to the emergency closure device in order to meet the requirements of § 172.328(d).\nSection 172.328(d) does not specify the distance the emergency shutoff marking must be in order\nto be immediately adjacent to the emergency closure device. However, based on the description\nyou provided in your email and the attached photo, it is the opinion of this Office that the\nemergency shutoff marking, as pictured, would be considered adjacent to the emergency closure\ndevice.\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\n\n<<>>\n\nPlease submit this as a letter of interpretation. I spoke with Mr. Olsen.\nMailing Address:\nThatcher Transportation, Inc.\n1905 Fortune Road\nSalt Lake City, Utah 84104\nPlease let me know if you have any questions.\nThanks,\nJordan\nFrom: Brent Olsen [mailto:Brent.Olsen@tchem.com]\nSent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:28 PM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter \nSubject: Interpretation of 172.328(d)\nOne of our drivers received a violation in Colorado today because the inspector thought the Emergency Shutoff decal on\nthe left front of the cargo tank should be closer to the actual emergency closure device (a break bolt). Looking at the\npicture, the decal appears to be about 4 inches to the right of the device and approximately 12 inches above it (see\npicture in attachment).\n172.328(d) does not list any specific distance the decal has to be within, but only states that it must be immediately\nwe ben means oke tr. The existing deal was placed there by the cargo tank manufacturer, and they state\nthey've been putting it there for as many years as they can remember.\nI couldn't find any interpretation specifying the distance, but that's my question. How close does the Emergency Shutoff\ndecal have to be to the \"means of closure\" to be immediately adjacent to it? Thank you.\nBrent L. Olsen, CDS\nSafety Manager\nThatcher Transportation, Inc.\nDirect: (801) 924-1413 | M: (801) 833-5148\nThe information contained in this e-mail message, and any attachments to it, contain confidential, proprietary,\nprivileged, or otherwise secret information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have\nreceived this email or attachments in error, any dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or copying of\nthe information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If you have\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\nEMERGENCY\nSHUTOFF\n\n<<>>\n\nTo Whom It May Concern,\nUsher Transport Inc. is seeking guidance on 172.328(d). We recently received a violation for failing to\nmark a manual remote shut-off device as required. The remote shut-off device was marked in two\nseparate locations. One of the markings was located directly beside the shut-off. That marking was\ndamaged therefore we received a violation. The secondary marking was in perfect condition and was\nlocated immediately adjacent to the means of closure. I have attached photographs for your review. I\nhave also attached a PHMSA letter of interpretation that is an exact representation of our situation. The\nonly difference is the location of our placard holder, which we feel solidifies the location of our\nemergency shut-off marking. If we elected to put the shut-off marking on the bulkhead it would have\nbeen located more towards the center line of the tank and therefore the distance would have been\ngreater. Therefore, we placed the marking in the best location which we believe meets the\ninterpretation. The state is claiming that our secondary marking does not meet regulation due to the\narrow not pointing at the direct means of closure. Does our secondary marking meet regulations?\nSee Photo's below:\n\n<<>>\n\nOUR ONLY PRODUCT IS SERVICE\n\n<<>>\n\nUT\nOUR ONLY PRODUCT IS SERVICE\n120S\n3\nEMERGENCYS\nINTER\n\n<<>>\n\nOUR ONLY PRODUCT IS SERVICE\n487\n1203\n3\nINTERNATION\n\n<<>>\n\nOUR ONLY PRODUCT IS SERVICE\n487\n\n<<>>\n\nRespectfully,\nJed Hudson\nSafety Manager | Safety & Risk Management\nT: (502)449-4000\nM: (859)661-2034\njhudson@ushertransport.com - www.ushertransport.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":8769}