Another Test:

Rick G:

Dieselbear:

It would depend if the tank was a fuel system or a storage tank. If the 120 gallon tank was a storage tank not connected to the engines then the action was appropriate.

Gashauler:

I suppose since you missed the question others would get it right? J

The driver training described is above and beyond the definition of a tank vehicle:

No tank size is stipulated, if it’s a tank vehicle you need a tank endorsement.

Dieselbear:

An interesting interpretation; however, I can find nothing in the FMCSR excluding tow truck drivers from endorsements. The emergency exception in Part 390 applies to Part 390 – 399. Part 383.3 has exceptions for firefighters and police; however, since tow-trucks have no lights and siren the exception would not apply. Without a specific exception in the FMCSR the interpretation does not have a solid base to exist.

Be safe.

 

We run dedicated Hazmat and have to keep the placards on unless the trailer is washed out even if we have only 5 gallons of residue .
You don't have to concede anything to me . There are drivers that have only been out here a couple of years that are more knowledgeable than me in some areas .

 

I trust with your years that you would know or where to look. It's ok by me if you like it the other way.

 

The case above was on a towing company for a subsequent move from the accident site to central IL. The accident occurred inside a closed compound where the vehicle rolled. The tow company righted the vehicle then a day or two later towed the MC331 cargo tank to a repair facility.

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/SafeStat/SafetySea.asp?ais=&DOT=391633&WhichForm=&PageN=EH#EH

I had my first NASTI class 11/1998 in Denver, CO while working for the Port of Entry in Cortez, CO. I had a second dose about 03/2000 in Orlando, FL for Uncle Sam. I do about 32 Level I or V to stay qualified, the rest are Level III or Level IV while working details with the FRA.

I've requested clarification on the interpretations to see where the ghost in the machine comes from.

Be safe.

 

I'll be completely honest here and say I have never seen interpretations to the rules. I've seen definitions and exemptions which always clarified any questions with no problems. I'm sure they are on the net but not all drivers have the net. I have 49CFR 100 to 177, pocketbooks for FMCSR and Hazardous Materials Compliance, and drivers handbooks for CDL's and no where does it talk about interpretations so how is a driver to know? It sounds like the inspectors have a way out for the inspector. I must admit that I have never been in question with my driving or the vehicles that I have drove. If there is a rule that is spelled out to the T then I take that for what is required. If you can throw in any interpretation and it takes a court to decide then the system is in need of more repair than I thought. And I believe that most courts have no idea of all the rules with CMV. That belief was confirmed when I talk to a representative of the FMCSA and he told me that most courts are not up to speed on the federal rules and regulations. They even have a program that teaches the judges and will pay them if they teach other judges.

Interpretations are like asking for directions on the CB radio. There is no set standard and one day you may have decision A and the next you'll have decision B which is completely different than A. I don't believe that my company dealt with interpretations. I know we have a compliance department and every item on the truck or the operating procedures were never in question. But like I said I haven't run into this problem before.

So if you could can you please send me a link so I can come up to speed I would feel more comfortable? Thank you.

 

Interesting discussion, and somewhat related;
Years ago, a crane loaded a 3/4 full 10,000 gallon capacity diesel skid tank for a drilling rig onto a friends 5 axle lowboy trailer. As he was leaving the drill site, turning onto highway, a carload of drunk er... citizens, rounded a curve failing to stop for the flagman, hitting friends truck, knocking it out of commission. Although the company had their own wrecker, they simply sent the wrecker driver with another truck to hook onto the lowboy. The state trooper allowed the driver to hook onto the trailer, back it onto the location, but he could not leave as the wrecker driver did not have an X endorsement.
Trooper didn't buy into the first tow from an accident scene thing, citing no wrecker was used. Yes, the wrecker driver intended to deliver the tank to the new drill site location, which was actually closer, and somewhat en route to company yard.

 

Thanks dieselbear. I like your threads and informative come backs!