# Restek Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

**Citation:** 09-0044  
**Type / status:** guidance / guidance  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2010-01-28

09-0044 response to Restek Corporation concerning 173.124.

## Document text

<<<PAGE 1>>>

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
U.S. Department Washington, DC 20590
ofTransportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration JAN 2 8 '2JiJ
Mr. Erik Perrin, CSP
EHS Manager
Restek Corporation
110 Benner Circle
Bellefonte. P A 16823
Ref. No. 09-0044
Dear Mr. Perrin:
This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) as applicable to the approval of desensitized explosives. You
ask whether a change of diluent meeting the same hazard class and mass would be authorized
without further examination. An example you cite in your letter is a previously examined,
classed and approved desensitized explosive mixture containing 1 % RDX and 99% acetone.
Because the mixture exhibits characteristics of the solvent and not the explosive substance
when examined and tested, you ask if an alternative diluent of the same hazard class, packing
group and concentration, such as methanol, could be substituted for the acetone without
obtaining approval from the Associate Administrator.
As specified in § 173.124(a), unless the mixture is specifically listed by name in the § 172.101
Hazardous Materials Table (HMT), all desensitized explosive mixtures are assigned a
shipping name and hazard class by the Associate Administrator under the provisions of either
a special permit or approval. Furthermore, most desensitized explosive mixtures specifically
listed by name in the HMT also require approval before they may be offered for
transportation. Thus, written approval must be issued by the Associate Administrator if an
alteration is made to any constituent within a desensitized explosive mixture unless the
alteration is specifically listed by name in the HMT or is authorized in an assigned § 172.102
special provision.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

<<<PAGE 2>>>

=liC~Li:<
5teve.Vl S
_""'-~""'It.. ~ J73· 6<0
or10 s i V€-J I
e;,ot - 00'-17
*
*
*
*
Chromatography Products 110 Benner Circle
Bellefonte, PA 16823
814-353-1300
800-356-1688
www.restek.com
'I
January 4, 2008
Edward T. Mazzullo
Director
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20590-0001
Subject: Request for Interpretation (49CFR 173.56)
Dear Mr. Mazzullo,
My question pertains to the manufacture of Analytical Reference Materials (ARM) for the chromatography
industry. ARM Standards contain extremely low percentages of explosive material completely dissolved in
solvent. These mixes are packaged in glass ampules and are used in a variety of laboratory testing
processes. These laboratory standard solutions are used to calibrate laboratory equipment or analyze and
evaluate other chemical samples. A TF has detennined that explosive materials used in laboratory standard
solutions, such as the items outlined here, fall within the Federal regulation at 27CFR 555 Subpart - H
Exemptions. 27CFR 555.141 (a) (9) allows for the use ofthese explosive materials as industrial and
laboratory chemicals which are intended for use as reagents and which are packaged and shipped pursuant
ofDOT regulations.
Extensive testing has been completed on these products and results have indicated that that the solutions
display the properties ofthe solvent and not the explosive. Due to these solutions not meeting the criteria
for Class 1 Materials, would I be correct in concluding that the materials do not need to be classified as a
new explosive?
If these items are considered new explosives and DOT classification approval is required, would a new
approval be necessary each time a solvent is changed? Example; DOT Classifies 1% RDX combined with
99% Acetone as a desensitized explosive. Due to customer request, ifthe solvent were substituted to 99%
Methanol, would this be considered a new explosive?
49CFR 173.56 defmes a new explosive;
(a) Defmition ofnew explosive. For the purposes ofthis subchapter a new explosive means an explosive
produced by a person who: (1) Has not previously produced that explosive; or (2) Has previously
produced that explosive but has made a change in the formulation, design or process so as to alter any of
the properties ofthe explosive.
In the scenario above, while there has been a change in fonnulation, the change has not altered any ofthe
properties ofthe explosive. Would I be correct in concluding that the material would not meet the
definition ofa new explosive?
I thank you for your interpretation and look forward to your response.
Sincerely
b~'
Erik Perrin, CSP
EHS Manager
Restek Corporation

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090044.pdf>
- Source ID: `phmsa`
- SHA-256: `d6f9e4221931b829cb2b1d4145b4e1e85c16604e65be2e290656e9746b478a3b`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T00:59:31.977Z
- Exported: 2026-08-23T15:46:04.136Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-interpretation-09-0044`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "materialSubtype": "interpretation",
  "interpretationArea": "hazardous_materials",
  "representation": "full_text_from_official_pdf",
  "companies": [
    "Restek Corporation"
  ],
  "individuals": [
    "Mr. Erik Perrin"
  ],
  "refIds": [
    "09-0044"
  ],
  "catalogDates": [
    "2010-01-28"
  ],
  "catalogParts": [
    173
  ],
  "catalogRowCount": 1,
  "sourceRecordUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/44651"
  ],
  "linkedAttachmentUrls": [],
  "unavailableResponseUrls": [],
  "duplicateRepresentationUrls": [],
  "citedSections": [
    "173.124",
    "173.124(a)",
    "172.101",
    "172.102",
    "173.56"
  ],
  "catalogPageUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/173124"
  ],
  "pdfUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090044.pdf"
  ],
  "representations": [
    {
      "viewUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090044.pdf",
      "detailUrl": null,
      "detailHtmlPath": null,
      "pdfUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090044.pdf",
      "pdfArtifactPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/09-0044-8e31138aa0.pdf",
      "pdfArtifactSha256": "64538a84f3acb8a072fe5a51c027ec3b8784d0191b0478e504fab47b580097d7",
      "extractedTextPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/09-0044-8e31138aa0.v2.txt",
      "extractedTextSha256": "f0f0c5e875667502432a2490f0244dbd8995be0c9c9690e1157ce491ecec2e5e",
      "pageCount": 2,
      "extractionVersion": 2
    }
  ],
  "caveat": "Interpretations apply regulations to the facts presented and do not create independently enforceable requirements.",
  "jurisdiction": "US"
}
```