{"operation":"document","citation":"CHI-10-0239","title":"Village of Itasca — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2011-06-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CHI-10-0239 response to Village of Itasca concerning 171.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-chi-10-0239.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-chi-10-0239.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-chi-10-0239","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Hazmat/ChiefCounsel/CHI-10-0239.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.,\nPHC-10, Room E26-331\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nOffice of\nNashington, D.C. 20590-000\nChief Counsel\nPhone: (202)366-4400\nFax: (202) 366-7041\nEmail: joe.solomey@dot.gov\nHazardous Materials Safety Law\nDivision\nLETTER OF INTERPRETATION\nJune 16, 2011\nNicole P. Aranas\nVillage of Itasca\nCommunity Development Department\n550 West Irving Park Rd.\nItasca, IL 60143\nReference No. 10-0239\nDear Ms. Aranas:\nThis is in response to your letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the federal regulations pertaining to the storage of\nhazardous material incident to transportation. You ask the following:\n• Are rules established by a local zoning authority regulating the location of hazardous\nmaterial storage incident to movement preempted by federal hazardous materials\nregulations?\n• Do any Federal regulations limit the quantity of hazardous materials that may be stored\nincidental to transport within a single building?\n• Do any Federal regulations govern the size of a building that may be used for hazardous\nmaterials storage incidental to transportation?\n• Do any Federal regulations govern the level of fire protection required to be installed in a\nbuilding used for hazardous materials storage incidental to transport?\n• Do any Federal regulations govern the distance permitted between a building used for\nhazardous materials storage incidental to transport and other buildings?\n• Is local authority to regulate buildings and land used for hazardous material storage\nincidental to transport with respect to quantities of materials stored, sized of buildings\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nused, level of fire protection installed and distance to other buildings otherwise\npreempted by Federal regulations?\nTo answer your first question concerning preemption, as explained in §171.1(f) of the HMR, a\nfacility may be subject to applicable laws and regulations of state and local governments even\nthough functions are being performed at that facility which are regulated under the HMR.\nHowever, a requirement of a state, local, or tribal government that conflicts with requirements in\nthe HMR is preempted, unless otherwise authorized by another Federal statute or the Department\nof Transportation (DOT) issues a waiver of preemption. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) makes a preemption determination applicable to specific non-\nFederal requirements on a case-by-case basis. The procedures for the DOT to make\nadministrative determinations of preemption are set forth in subpart C of part 107.\nAs for your remaining questions, as noted, preemption determinations are made on a case-by-\ncase basis. We are unable to answer your questions definitively without a more detailed set of\nfacts on which to apply the HMR. However, DOT found that the HMR preempts non-Federal\nrequirements in the situations listed below, which we provide as a guide to further your\nunderstanding.\n1. Packing/Repacking of HM\n•\nState prohibition against any repackaging/re-containerization of hazardous\nwastes is preempted as not substantially the same as requirements in the\nHMR. PD-12(R) (New York), 60 Fed. Reg. 62527 (Dec. 6, 1995); PD-12(R)\n(New York), 62 Fed. Reg. 15970 (Apr. 8, 1997); PD-25(R) (Missouri) 66 Fed.\nReg. 37089 (July 16, 2001).\n2. Marking/Labeling/Placarding\n• Requirements for identification/registration/inspection certification on\npackagings and distinctive labels on outer containers are preempted because\nthey are not \"substantively the same\" as HMR requirements for marking and\nlabeling. PD-4(R) (California), 58 Fed. Reg. 48933 (Sept. 20, 1993); PD-4(R)\n(California), 60 Fed. Reg. 8800 (Feb. 15, 1995); PD-29(R) (Massachusetts) 69\nFed. Reg. 34715 (June22, 2004).\n• Placarding and other hazarding warning requirements are preempted if they\nare in addition to or different from Federal placarding requirements. IR-2\n(Rhode Island), 44 Fed. Reg. 75566 (Dec. 20, 1979); IR-3 (Boston, MA), 46\nFed. Reg. 18918 (Mar. 26, 1981); IR-3 (Boston, MA), 47 Fed. Reg. 18457\n(Apr. 29, 1982); IR-24 (San Antonio, TX) 53 Fed. Reg. 19848 (May 31,\n1988), IR-30 (Oakland, CAa), 55 Fed. Reg. 9676 (Mar. 14, 1990); IR-30\n(Oakland, CA), 55 Fed. Reg. 12111 (Mar. 30, 1990).\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n3\n3. Shipping Papers\n• Additional or different shipping paper requirements are generally preempted.\nIR-4 (Washington State), 47 Fed. Reg. 1231 (Jan. 11, 1982); IR-4\n(Washington State), 47 Fed. Reg. 33357 (Aug. 2, 1982); IR-4 (Washington\nState), 47 Fed. Reg. 34074 (Aug. 5, 1982).\n4. Segregation/Separation/Interim Storage\n• State or local prohibition of hazardous material storage incidental to\ntransportation without a state or local permit at places where, and for times\nwhen, the HMR allow such storage is preempted. PD-30(R) (Houston,\nTexas), 71 Fed. Reg. 9413 (Feb. 23, 2006).\n• State or local imposition of containment and segregation requirements for the\nstorage of HM incidental to transportation thereof different from, or\nadditional to those in the HMR create confusion concerning such\nrequirements and the likelihood of noncompliance with the HMR. IR-19\n(Nevada), 52 Fed. Reg. 24404 (June 30, 1987); IR-19 (Nevada), 52 Fed. Reg.\n29468 (Aug. 7, 1987); IR-19 (Nevada), 53 Fed. Reg. 11600 (Apr. 7, 1988);\nIR-28 (San Jose, CA) 55 Fed. Reg. 8884 (Mar. 8, 1990).\n5. Routing Requirements\n• Without adequate safety justification and appropriate coordination with, and\nconcern for safety of people in, adjoining jurisdictions, routing restrictions\n(including time and weather restrictions) are preempted - particularly if they\nresult in increased transit times. 49 CFR 397.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have any additional questions.\nSincerely,\nJawl Solomy\nJoseph Solomey,\nAssistant Chief Counsel for\nHazardous Materials Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":5924}