Getting your "N" or "X"

[layoutshooter]

Effective July 8, 2011, the FMSCA changed the definition of a “tank” vehicle which impacts the transport of multiple bulk containers, i.e. tote tanks or dewars, for all commodities. The original definition was focused on containers that were permanently or temporarily attached to a vehicle or chassis excluding portable tanks/dewars.

The new definition now includes the previously excluded portable tanks/dewars and is phrased to account for the “aggregate rated capacity” of multiple containers totaling 1,000 gallons or more will require the driver to have a tank endorsement (N) on their license to haul these shipments. For example, if a driver were to have 10 tote tanks, and each tank had a capacity of 119 gallons, the total aggregate rated capacity of shipment would be 1,190 gallons. This would exceed the 1,000 gallon requirement in the new tank definition, and the driver would need the tank endorsement to haul this shipment.


How many expediters who do not currently have an "N" or "X" endorsement on you license are planning on doing so? How many feel that they handle enough of that type of freight to make it worth the effort?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Effective July 8, 2011, the FMSCA changed the definition of a “tank” vehicle which impacts the transport of multiple bulk containers, i.e. tote tanks or dewars, for all commodities. The original definition was focused on containers that were permanently or temporarily attached to a vehicle or chassis excluding portable tanks/dewars.

The new definition now includes the previously excluded portable tanks/dewars and is phrased to account for the “aggregate rated capacity” of multiple containers totaling 1,000 gallons or more will require the driver to have a tank endorsement (N) on their license to haul these shipments. For example, if a driver were to have 10 tote tanks, and each tank had a capacity of 119 gallons, the total aggregate rated capacity of shipment would be 1,190 gallons. This would exceed the 1,000 gallon requirement in the new tank definition, and the driver would need the tank endorsement to haul this shipment.


How many expediters who do not currently have an "N" or "X" endorsement on you license are planning on doing so? How many feel that they handle enough of that type of freight to make it worth the effort?

Does that include like barrels as well?

1 Gallon of oil weighs 7.344 pounds. Used oil may weigh slightly more

​

 

[jjoerger]

We have the X endorsement.
It is a simple test.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[Moot]

LOS, where do you get this stuff? If it truly is a new definition and regulation why not post the regulation or link instead of yours or someone's interpretation of the law. By the way its FMCSA, not FMSCA.

 

[layoutshooter]

LOS, where do you get this stuff? If it truly is a new definition and regulation why not post the regulation or link instead of yours or someone's interpretation of the law. By the way its FMCSA, not FMSCA.

Posted it off the FEDEX weekly rag thing. All I did was a cut and paste.

YES, OVM, it includes barrels.

 

[Turtle]

The link to the definition is found here:
Definitions. - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Tank vehicle means any commercial motor vehicle that is designed to transport any liquid or gaseous materials within a tank or tanks having an individual rated capacity of more than 119 gallons and an aggregate rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that is either permanently or temporarily attached to the vehicle or the chassis. A commercial motor vehicle transporting an empty storage container tank, not designed for transportation, with a rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that is temporarily attached to a flatbed trailer is not considered a tank vehicle.

I do wonder if individual totes, when carried as cargo, is the same as "...that is either permanently or temporarily attached to the vehicle or the chassis".

 

[layoutshooter]

From what little I have been able to gather individual totes cannot be hauled if they exceed the overall weight limits. Unless you have the endorsement that is.

 

[greg334]

I can't find a thing about this because this would directly affect my work.

If the safety guy from FedEx can provide some insight into this, we would appreciate it.

 

[layoutshooter]

I can't find a thing about this because this would directly affect my work.

If the safety guy from FedEx can provide some insight into this, we would appreciate it.

It won't unless you are carrying liquids that exceed the weight. This will cut us out of a few loads, not very many, maybe 2-4 per year.

What does Landstar have to say about it?

 

[greg334]

Good question, I don't know because I haven't checked with them yet. BUT it would seem to make me think that because I haven't heard about it before and I can't seem to find anything about it, it may be a mistake or someone in Green may not be thinking. I don't know. BUT I do know our resident FedEx safety guy has to have an answer that would address the FedEx portion of the cut and paste statement.

By the way, thanks for posting that.

 

[layoutshooter]

Good question, I don't know because I haven't checked with them yet. BUT it would seem to make me think that because I haven't heard about it before and I can't seem to find anything about it, it may be a mistake or someone in Green may not be thinking. I don't know. BUT I do know our resident FedEx safety guy has to have an answer that would address the FedEx portion of the cut and paste statement.

By the way, thanks for posting that.

No problem, thought it was important. I first heard about it on one of the 'trucking shows' on the radio a couple of nights ago. They were talking about the 'new definition' and how it affects drivers.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/register/2011/may/09/2011-10510.pdf


a pdf file......page 13 of 44 Section D.......it is all there....

d. Definition of Tank Vehicle
FMCSA proposed to amend § 383.5 to
set an aggregate rated capacity threshold
of 1,000 or more gallons for all tanks
(permanent and portable) before a driver
would need a tank endorsement.
Comments. Advocates strongly
opposed this change. It commented that
FMCSA did not adequately justify this
change, indicating that it believed that
this change would exempt CMV
operators from the tank endorsement
requirement when transporting certain
hazardous materials of less than 1,000
gallons. Oregon supports the change for
tank vehicles, but suggested changing
the threshold to 500 gallons. CVSA
supports the change for tank vehicles
and the clarification that the tank
capacity threshold for needing a tank
vehicle endorsement should be the
aggregate capacity of tanks being
transported.
FMCSA Response. While the
proposed amendment setting a 1,000
gallon aggregate capacity threshold will
remain in the final rule, there is also a
need to retain a minimum individual
rated tank capacity for the purpose of
determining the aggregate capacity of
the vehicle carrying multiple tanks. In
the current definition of tank vehicle,
reference is made to cargo tanks and
portable tanks as defined in 49 CFR 171.
Both of these types of tanks are defined
as ‘‘bulk packaging’’ which is further
defined in part 171 as having a capacity
greater than 119 gallons. Therefore, only
tanks being transported with a rated
capacity greater than 119 gallons will be
considered for the purpose of
determining the aggregate capacity
threshold for needing a tank vehicle
endorsement,
The requirement for an endorsement
for tank vehicles designed to transport
1,000 gallons or more is separate from
the hazardous materials requirements.
This rule does not affect any preexisting
hazardous material restrictions
that might apply.

 

[layoutshooter]

http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/register/2011/may/09/2011-10510.pdf


a pdf file......page 13 of 44 Section D.......it is all there....

WOW! That is really 'light reading' LOL!! Maybe look at that when you can't fall asleep one night!

 

[dabluzman1]

I dont see a reason to get the tanker endorsement. I have rarely if ever had 1000 gallons in totes on board. We wont miss much.

 

[BigCat]

We just carried 5 skids with 4 55 gal drums loaded so does that apply to those loads? We carry for this specific customer alot so should I go ahead and get this endorsement?

 

[Slacktide]

We just carried 5 skids with 4 55 gal drums loaded so does that apply to those loads? We carry for this specific customer alot so should I go ahead and get this endorsement?

55 gal drums are NOT considered "bulk". The new definition spoke specifically about dewars &totes of a capacity of 119 gal or more. So no need at this time.

the definition of "tank vehicle" can be found here.

Definitions. - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Tank vehicle means any commercial motor vehicle that is designed to transport any liquid or gaseous materials within a tank or tanks having an individual rated capacity of more than 119 gallons and an aggregate rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that is either permanently or temporarily attached to the vehicle or the chassis. A commercial motor vehicle transporting an empty storage container tank, not designed for transportation, with a rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that is temporarily attached to a flatbed trailer is not considered a tank vehicle.

here is a link that shows the changes from the old definition to the new.

IME - Institute of Makers of Explosives

 

[EASYTRADER]

We used to haul big steel totes for the fed all the time, but is seems in the last year not so much.

Incidently, my wife and I have tanker endorsements.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using EO Forums