{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0216","title":"American Trucking Associations — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-03-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"99-0216 response to American Trucking Associations concerning 172.516.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0216.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0216.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0216","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990216.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n-\nof Transportation\nUS. Department\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C.\n20590\nesearch an\nAdministration\npecial Program\nMAR 17 2000\nMr. Paul Bongardner\nRef. No. 99-0216\nDirector, Hazardous Materials Policy\nAmerican Trucking Associations\n2200 Mill Road\nAlexandria, VA 22314-4677\nDear Mr. Bomgardner:\nThis is in response to your letter concerning a 1985 letter from the Federal Highway Administration\n(FHWA) and a 1994 letter from this Office regarding the visibility and display of a placard under the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). We apologize for the delay in\nresponding and hope it has not caused any inconvenience.\nAs you are aware, the Research and Special Programs Administration's Office of Hazardous Materials\nSafety is the agency responsible for issuance and interpretation of the HMR, and it is also our\nresponsibility to provide clarifications or interpretations, when necessary. The March 19, 1985 letter\nwas not coordinated with this Office and represents the opinion of the specialist who wrote it. We\ndisagree with the opinion expressed in that letter. As indicated in our June 16, 1994, and April 14,\n1999 letters, locating a placard below the bed of a trailer and behind the rear-under-ride protection\ndevice significantly reduces the visibility of the placard and allows water, dirt and other debris to be\ndirected onto the placard. The display of a placard in such a location does not comply with the\nprovisions in § 172.516. This response has been coordinated with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety\nAdministration's Hazardous Materials Unit.\nI regret any confusion or inconvenience that may have been caused by the 1985 letter. If we can be of\nfurther assistance, please contact us.\nSincerely,\nRobert A. McGuire\nActing Associate Administrator for\nHazardous Materials Safety\n172,516\n990216\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nAMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS\n2200 Mill Road * Alexandria, VA * 22314-4677\nErgrurr)\n* Driving Trucking's Success\nS02.510\nSafety Policy\n99-0216\nAugust 3, 1999\n99 AUG - 6\nMr. Alan I. Roberts\nEXEMPTIONS & APPROVALS\nDO 1/RSPA / OHMS\nAssociate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nPM 2:27\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, SW\nWashington, DC 20590\nRe:\nRequest for reconsideration of opinion regarding Title 49 Part 172 Subpart F Section\n172.516\nDear Mr. Roberts:\nIt has recently been brought to my attention that the State of Michigan is citing motor\nmounted and displayed o sece on 2 trailer, sei rice or raciellace wher placed are\neither the right or left of the rear underride guard. While this places placards to the rear of the\nwheels and mudflaps, under normal conditions the placards remain free of dirt and other\nmaterials that could obscure their display.\n1\n(703) 838-1847 * Fax: (703) 683-1934\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nreverses the original 1985 opinion. We question the wisdom or necessity of taking enforcement\nactions against carriers for this practice 14 years after it was first approved and more than five\nyears after reversal?\nIf the 1994 opinion is to hold, and states begin to enforce the requirement in earnest,\nhundreds of thousands of trailers, semi-trailers, and trucks will be in violation. Three motor\ncarriers alone will account for nearly 80,000 possible violations because all of their semi-trailers\nare equipped with the placard mounted on the rear of the trailer behind the mudflap. The costs\nto the industry for retrofitting of these trailers would far outweigh any improvements in the sate\ntransportation of hazardous materials. Most of the vehicles in question are equipped with multi-\npaneled, roll-up doors that do not allow proper mounting of standard flip-style placards which\nwill force carriers to invest in unnecessarily expensive split-panel units. At a cost of\napproximately $20.00 per placard as compared to $16.00 for the standard style, the cost of\npurchasing placards for only the 3 carriers mentioned will be approximately $1.6 million, not\nincluding the cost of installation.\nWe submit that there is virtually no area of the rear of a trailer, semi-trailer, or truck, due\nso the Brodys it desha of oh the types of hides, haplace, ailiard any theside and\ncreates a vacuum at the rear. Turbulent air is then drawn into the rear of the trailer, bringing\nwater betore reaching the placard. Instead, water and dirt (splash and spray) are drawn into the\nair and eventually into the rear of the vehicle. This effect is so violent that in many cases carriers\nmust seal the doors in some fashion to keep moisture and dirt from entering the cargo area.\nThis effect is not unusual. In fact, imagine a station wagon or SUV travelling a dusty\nroad with the rear window opened. Before long, the entire inside of the vehicle is covered in\ndust, drawn in by the vacuum created as the vehicle rides along.. The entire back end of the\nvehicle is covered in dust, and in many cases, the taillights, turn signals, and rear license plates\nare obscured. So is the case of placards mounted anywhere on the rear of a vehicle.\nTherefore, ATA submits that violations of section 172.516 should be considered on a\ncase-by-case basis.\nIf the placard is dirty or otherwise obscured at the time the vehicle is\ninspected, then a violation should be noted and the carrier should be fined. If, on the other\nhand, the placard is clean and clearly visible, no violation should be recorded, regardless of its\nposition on the rear of the vehicle.\nWe believe that Mr. Mazzulo did not consider the dynamics of the vehicle, nor the\nearlier opinion when he rendered his decision in 1994. We request that RSPA revisit this issue\nand that a new opinion be issued that stresses the need to assess proper display on a case-by-case\nbasis. Carriers should not be cited merely on the basis that placards are mounted in a position\non the rear of the trailer, beneath the level of the floor and behind the mudflap. As long as the\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nplacard is clean and clearly visible, there should be no violation of section 172.516.\nSincerely,\ngerr\nPaul Bomgardner\nDirector, Hazardous Materials Policy\nCC: Sgt. David Ford, Michigan State Police\nChairman, CVSA Hazardous Materials Committee\nAttachments: Michigan DVIR #MIFD000115\nTune 16, 1994 letter by Edward T. Mazzullo\nMarch 19, 1985 letter by Norris J. Freeman","truncated":false,"body_characters":6341}