{"operation":"document","citation":"24-0120","title":"Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2025-07-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"24-0120 response to Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association concerning 172.201, 172.202, 173.241, 177.817, 177.834.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0120.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0120.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0120","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2025-07/240120.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nJuly 15, 2025\nRandy Stookey\nGeneral Counsel\nKansas Agribusiness Retailers Association\n816 SW Tyler Street\nTopeka, KS 66612\nReference No. 24-0120\nDear Mr. Stookey:\nThis letter is in response to your December 6, 2024 letter requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulation (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) provisions applicable to\nintermediate bulk containers (IBCs). In your letter, you state that a member of the Kansas\nAgribusiness Retailers Association (KARA) applied for and then received special permit\n(DOT-SP 12412) that allows unloading of liquid hazardous materials from an IBC without\nremoving it from the vehicle. DOT-SP 12412 is used to conduct delivery operations of\nagricultural hazardous materials to field application equipment. However, you seek clarification\nof several items associated with use of IBCs, the HMR, and DOT-SP 12412—including:\n• Use of out-of-test IBCs (i.e., out of specification IBCs) under DOT-SP 12412.\n• Draining or disconnecting hoses after unloading hazardous materials and before\nre-entering transportation.\n• Incomplete or lack of shipping records.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. Should an IBC no longer meeting a specification standard be considered a non-\nspecification portable tank for transportation of low-hazard liquid hazardous material in\naccordance with § 173.241?\nA1. Yes. If an IBC has not been maintained according to specification requirements of the\nHMR, it may generally be considered a non-specification bulk packaging provided the\nspecification marking has been removed, destroyed, or covered. More specifically, it may\nbe considered a non-DOT specification portable tank for the purpose of transporting\nhazardous materials in packing group II or III. Therefore, non-specification IBCs can be\nconsidered a non-DOT specification portable tank used to transport moderate to low\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nhazard liquid material, provided they are suitable for the transportation of liquid\nhazardous materials—see § 173.241(c).\nQ2. Should a non-DOT specification portable tank that is suitable for transporting liquid\nhazardous materials be removed from a vehicle before discharging its contents\n(i.e., unloading)?\nA2. Yes. In accordance with § 177.834(h), for other than a cargo tank or intermodal (IM)\nportable tank, the contents of a container must not be discharged until after the container\nis removed from the motor vehicle.\nQ3. Should hoses used to unload content from a non-DOT specification portable tank be\ndisconnected and drained prior to transport?\nA3. Yes. A hose for loading and unloading a non-DOT specification portable tank is not\nintended to contain hazardous material during transportation. Instead, it serves to connect\nthe authorized transport packaging to a discharging or receiving container. While it is\nimpractical to eliminate all traces of hazardous material residue from these hoses while\nvehicles are in transit to deliver product, the residue must be removed as much as\npossible, unless explicitly excepted in the HMR or through a special permit.\nQ4. You note that DOT-SP 12412 applies to UN specification IBCs and DOT specification\n57 portable tanks and does not extend to a non-DOT specification portable tank. Is a\nspecial permit required to discharge (unload) low hazard materials from a non-DOT\nspecification portable tank without first removing the tank from a vehicle?\nA4. Yes. Because DOT-SP 12412 does not extend to a non-DOT specification tank, a person\nwould need to apply for a special permit to unload a non-DOT specification portable tank\nwithout first removing it from the vehicle in accordance with § 177.834(h). See\n§ 107.105 for special permit application requirements.\nQ5. Can KARA members maintain a running master shipping paper for a truck making\nmultiple field deliveries, rather than requiring the carrier to update the shipping document\nafter each delivery; and whether total quantity may be indicated in a similar manner\nprovided for bulk packagings in § 172.202(a)(5)?\nA5. Yes. In accordance with §§ 172.201(e) and 177.817(f)—a person is permitted to use and\nmaintain a single (permanent) shipping paper for multiple shipments of hazardous\nmaterials that have the same shipping name and identification number without creating a\nseparate copy for each shipment. When using a permanent shipping paper for multiple\nshipments, there must be a record of each stop that reflects the shipping name,\nidentification number, quantity transported, and date of shipment after each unloading of\nhazardous material (see § 177.817(f)). Regarding the quantity transported, where a bulk\npackaging is used, nothing in either §§ 172.201(e) or 177.817(f) prohibits the packaging\ntypes from being used to indicate the quantity transported consistent with the allowance\nfound in § 172.202(a)(5)—i.e., the number of portable tanks. Please note that if a motor\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\ncarrier picks up additional quantities of hazardous materials not previously indicated on\nthe shipping paper, the additional quantities must be reflected if the total quantity on the\nvehicle at any time exceeds the quantity transported as indicated on the shipping paper1\n.\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\n1 See letter Ref. No. 00-0001.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nr ) KARA\nKan 101 Agrlliu1 lnu1 Rctcailcn A u odc tfo.n\nKansas Agribusiness Retailers Assocation\n816 SW Tyler, Topeka, KS 66612\nDecember 6, 2024\nMr. Shane Kelley\nDirector, Standards and Rulemaking Division\nU.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-10)\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nRe: Request for Letters of Interpretation on DOT-SP12412 Compliance Issues\nKansas Agribusiness Retailers Association (KARA) is a voluntary trade association whose\nmembership includes over 700 agribusiness firms that are primarily retail facilities\nsupplying fertilizers, crop protection chemicals, commercial application services and seed\nto Kansas farmers. KARA serves as a representative voice for the agribusiness industry.\nLast year, a KARA member was inspected while unloading (discharging) liquid chemical\nfrom intermediate bulk container (IBC) affixed to a tender truck. The chemical was being\nmixed with water and unloaded at a field into agricultural spray application equipment.\nThe KARA member was cited for violating US DOT regulation 49 CFR § 177.834(h).\nconcerning the regulation of hazardous materials (HM) during transit. The company was\nrequired to apply for and receive a US DOT Special Permit (DOT-SP12412) for the unloading\n(discharging) of liquid HM from a UN IBC without first removing the tanks from the vehicle\non which they were transported.\nFollowing the issuance of this special permit, other KARA members have applied for their\nown DOT-SP12412 for similar tender truck configurations used to deliver agricultural\nchemicals to field application equipment.\nRecently, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) informed KARA\nof additional possible violations of USDOT regulations.\n1. Use of out-of-test IBCs under DOT-SP12412, and fa ilure to follow the provisions of a\nDOT-SP12412 by failing to drain or disconnect hoses after unloading chemicals that\nhave not been removed from the vehicle.\n2. Failure to make and maintain shipping records in accordance with the regulations.\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nKansas Agribusiness Retailers Association\nRequest for Letters of Interpretation\nAs KARA members are participants in the production agriculture industry, KARA submits\nthis request to USDOT PHMSA for letters of interpretation of agency regulations to allow for\npractical compliance solutions for our industry.\n1. Use of Out-of-Test IBC Shuttles and Failure to Drain Intermittent Hoses\nThe regulations define \"IBC\" and \"non-specification bulk packaging\" tanks separately. An\nIBC is required to transport HM. An IBC is only a \"definitional IBC\" if transporting a\nhazardous material.\nHowever, low-hazard materials may be transported in \"non-specification portable tanks,\"\nwhich are not required to meetthe DOT-SP12412 IBC hose drainage requirements.\nUnder the DOT-SP12412 waiver, HM must be removed from transport hoses prior to\ntransport. DOT-SP12412 requirements do not allow chemicals to be transported while in\nintermittent hoses between IBCs and the system manifold.\nIf an IBC can be considered a \"non-specification portable tank\" when transporting a low-\nhazard material, then our industry members would not need to comply with the IBC DOT-\nSP12412 hose drainage requirement for intermittent hoses.\nIf an IBC is not considered a \"non-specification portable tank\" when transporting a low-\nhazard material, then our members would need to apply for a new special permit that\naccurately reflects the actual operations (i.e. leaving hoses connected) and includes the\nnecessity, effects on safety, and equivalency of safety.\nHowever, currently available technology and equipment does not generally allow the\nreturn of chemicals from the intermittent hoses to IBCs in these tender truck\nconfigurations. This creates a practical hurdle in complying with the regulation and DOT-\nSP12412 requirements.\nUnder 49 CFR 177.834(h), \"Discharge of contents of any container, other than a cargo tank\nor IM portable tank, must not be made prior to removal from the motor vehicle.\"\nDOT-SP12412 authorizes the discharge of liquid HM from certain UN lnt.ermediate Bulk\nContainet~(IBCs) and DOT Specification 57 portable tanks without removing the tanks\nfrom the vehicle on which they are transported, so long as special permit provisions are\nfollowed, such as disconnecting hoses.\nPHMSA Interpretation Letter 08-0286 and PHMSA Interpretation Letter 10-0186 indicate a\nUN IBC that no longer meets the standard is a \"non-specification bulk packaging.\"\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nKansas Agribusiness Retailers Association\nRequest for Letters of Interpretation\nUnder 49 CFR 173.241, for \"[b]ulk packagings for certain low hazard liquid and solid\nmaterials\", certain PGIII materials such as Gramoxone aka Paraquat, \"non-DOT\nSpecification portable tanks suitable for transport of liquids are authorized.\"\nInterpretation Request: KARA requests a PHMSA letter of interpretation on whether an\nIBC can be considered a \"non-specification portable tank\" based on the low-hazard\nchemical the IBC contains, when the low-hazard chemical is being transported in an out of\ntest IBC.\nIf so, then this would avoid the DOT-SP12412 IBC requirement to drain the intermittent\nhoses of chemical prior to transport, and other such requirements.\nAdditionally, KARA requests interpretations on the following issues:\n• Whether a UN IBC that no longer meets the standard, and is a \"non-specification bulk\npackaging,\" can be considered a \"non-DOT Specification portable tank suitable for\ntransport of liquids\" authorized under 49 CFR 173.241 (c).\n• Whether \"non-DOT Specification portable tanks suitable for transport of liquids\" must\nbe physically unloaded from a vehicle prior to filling/discharge, and whether hoses\nfrom such tanks must be disconnected and drained prior to transport.\n• If a non-DOT Specification portable tank must be removed, and DOT-SP12412 is for UN\nIntermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) and DOT Specification 57 portable tanks, but does\nnot include \"non-DOT Specification portable tanks suitable for transport of liquids are\nauthorized\", then would a new special permit be required for the discharge of low\nhazard agronomy chemicals from non-DOT Specification portable tanks?\n2. Shipping Documents\nPHMSA identified that certain required documents for agricultural chemical HM (bills of\nlading, manifests, etc.), were not being made, updated, and maintained appropriately\nduring tender truck deliveries of HM chemicals to field application equipment at multiple\nfield locations.\nRegulations require shipping documents to be updated after each delivery, which requires\nour industry members to keep accurate, updated, on-going records of the actual volume of\nchemical being transported at any given time (following each field delivery).\nHowever, 49 CFR 172.202(a)(5) allows that shipping papers describing the shipment of\nbulk packaging are allowed to utilize a more generic package quantity/amount, such as \"1\ncargo tank\" or \"2 IBCs.\"\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nKansas Agribusiness Retailers Association\nRequest for Letters of Interpretation\n49 CFR 172.201 (e) provides that, for shipments using a shipping paper without change for\nmultiple shipments of one or more hazardous materials having the same shipping name\nand identification number, the carrier may retain a single copy of the shipping paper,\ninstead of a copy for each shipment made, if the carrier also retains a record of each\nshipment made, to include shipping name, identification number, quantity transported,\nand date of shipment.\nApplying this portion of the regulation could be applied to spray trailer tender trucks\nservicing multiple fields and customers. Technically, each new location is an individual\nshipment, the same as deliveries of bulk fuel and bulk propane. So, in lieu of needing to\ncreate multiple shipping papers for each drop, a record of delivery could be maintained\nwith minimal HM information.\nThe record of shipment requires the \"quantity transported\" to be reported. However, since\nthis is in a different section, in 173.201, there is a question of whether the regulation\nrequires a record of the actual amount of chemical transported/delivered, or whether it\ncould merely provide the number and package type, such as \"2 IBC\".\nIf the requirement is for the shipping document to record the actual amount of chemical\ntransported/delivered, then the agribusiness would be responsible for maintaining an\naccurate, updated, record of the amount of HM chemical being transported at all times.\nFor practical purposes, this would be a departure from commonly accepted business\npractices. It would also present a practical hurdle given the current technologies and\ntracking systems available, as the actual amount of chemical in an IBC on these tender\ntrucks, at any given time, is generally unknown when the truck is making multiple stops.\nRecords of the total sales and deliveries of the agricultural chemicals to field location(s)\nfor customers are maintained, however, and are inspected during records reviews by DOT\nand the l<ansas Department of Agriculture.\nInterpretation Request: l<ARA requests a PHMSA letter of interpretation on the operative\nregulations to allow industry to make and maintain a running master shipping paper for a\ntruck making multiple field deliveries rather than requiring the carrier to update the\nshipping documents following each field delivery. S_e_e exceptions in 49 CFR 172.202(5).\nAlso See, Record keeping regulation, Title 49 CFR 172.201.\nThis would be an exception to the specific gallonage requirement, to allow the carrier to\nmake records of \"one tank\" or \"one IBC\", rather than requiring the carrier to update the\namount of chemical being transported following each separate field delivery.\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nKansas Agribusiness Retailers Association\nRequest for Letters of Interpretation\nThank you for the opportunity to submit this request for letters of interpretation. We rely on\nyour expertise of these regulations in finding practical solutions to these identified\ncompliance chall ges. We look forward to working with you.\nRandy Stookey\nGeneral Counsel\nKansas Agribusiness Retailers Association\n785-234.0461 I Randy@kansasag.org\n5","truncated":false,"body_characters":15707}