{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0225","title":"Dangerous Goods Program and Cargo Security — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-08-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0225 response to Dangerous Goods Program and Cargo Security concerning 171.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0225.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0225.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0225","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000225.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n•\nMemorandum\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nDate:\nAUG | 8 2000\nReply to Attn. of: Ref. No. 00-0225\nINFORMATION: Applicability of the HMR to Confiscated Materials\namont. Cellar\nFront\nEdward T. Mazzullo, Director\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nTo:\nWilliam Wilkening, Manager\nDangerous Goods and Cargo Security\nThis is in response to your memorandum dated July 26, 2000, regarding the applicability of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to a hazardous material\nconfiscated by an airline. Your questions are listed below for ease of response:\nQ1) If AMR (American Airlines) places hazardous materials inside a temporary storage container\nafter confiscating the material from a passenger, are the materials considered in transportation?\nDoes this practice by AMR indirectly make them become a generator of hazardous waste?\nAl) The HMR apply to the transportation, including incidental storage thereto, of a hazardous\nmaterial in commerce. It is the opinion of this Office that a hazardous material that is placed inside\na temporary storage container after being confiscated from a passenger is not subject to the HMR\nbecause it is neither in transportation or in temporary storage incidental to transportation. The act\nof confiscation by the airline removes the item from transportation, and thus the applicability of the\nHMR. Questions regarding the definition of a hazardous waste generator should be directed to the\nEnvironmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania\nAvenue, N. W., Washington, DC 20460.\nQ2) If AMR transports these materials via surface, are the materials regulated under the HMR? If\nthey are regulated, could AMR apply for an exemption to move these items? Does it matter\nwhether or not these materials are contained inside the manufacturers original container?\nA2) A hazardous material that has been confiscated by an airline and then subsequently\ntransported by that airline is subject to the HMR, regardless of the mode of transportation.\nIf AMR offers these materials for transportation or transports them, it must conform to all\napplicable provisions of the HMR. AMR may want to consider employing qualified professionals\nto transport these materials, such as a hazardous waste transportation company.\n000225\n11\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nThe HMR do provide several exceptions from specific requirements for certain hazardous\nmaterials, e.g., small quantities, materials ot trade, and consumer commodities. It is probable that\nmost of the materials that AMR is confiscating meet the conditions for shipping as consumer\ncommodities. You do not state why an exemption might be necessary. Any person can apply for\nan exemption from the HMR in accordance with the procedures outlined in 49 CFR 107.105.\nGenerally, an application must demonstrate a level of safety of least equal to that required by\nregulation.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nGale\n530\n8171.1\n1?\nMemorandum\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\nFederal Aviation\nApplica bilty\nAdministration\n00-0225\nSubject: INFORMATION: American Airlines Safety, Security,\nDate:\nJUL 26 2000\nand Environmental Compliance Program\nFrom: Manager, Dangerous Goods and Cargo Security\nAttn. of:\nReply to Mark L. Lendvay\n7-9870\nTo: Acting Associate Administrator, DHM-1\nIn December of 1999, AMR, the parent company of American Airlines and American Eagle,\nagreement, whereby, AMR agreed to carry out the provisions of a jointly developed compliance\npleaded to an environmental crime.. As part of their court sentencing, AMR entered into a plea\nthe United States Department of Justice. The compliance program addresses safety, security,\nprogram established between the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and\nand environmental issues, and requires actions that exceed current federal standards.\nThe compliance program requires AMR to carry out the required provisions for a period of 3\nMaterials Regulations (HMR) and the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Fhmtl).\nyears, which in most instances, are noted as being above and beyond the current Hazardous\nOne example of these procedures is to train pre-board security screeners to locate hazardous\nmaterials in passenger baggage.\nCurrently (see attachment) security screeners are not considered \"Hazmat Employees\" because\ntheir contact with hazardous materials is incidental to their assigned security duties and\nresponsibilities.\nintended to prevent bombings and air piracy, not to detect unauthorized hazardous materials.\nPre-board security screening is mandated under aviation legislation and is\nSince April of this year, both American Airlines and American Eagle have been finding hazardous\nmaterials contained inside passenger baggage. For example, on one particular day American\nAirlines in part, using x-ray technology, detected approximately 25 passengers who were all\nmajority of these materials consisted of flammable liquids, corrosives and aerosols both non-\ndeparting on the same international flight with an array of undeclared hazardous materials. The\nflammable and flammable.\nmaterials inside passenger baggage. However, based on the first 3 months of reporting by AMR,\nAs you are aware, the HMRs currently do not require air carriers to search for hazardous\nwe believe that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), specifically the Research and\nSpecial Programs Administration (RSPA), should be aware of these findings.\nexamining the feasibility of using new noninvasive screening technologies for cargo, mail and\nWe feel that this information will supplement the Department's Flagship Initiative, which is\nbaggage screening. Its our understanding that the first step of this initiative is to analyze the\nlogistical difficulties and review applicable legal authorities and precedents involved with\ngeneralized hazardous materials searches or screening. We feel that this information will be\nbeneficial to this endeavor, and perhaps assist your office with the development of regulatory\nproposals.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nOther issues that have surfaced since implementation of the AMR compliance program, and\nwhich require clarification from RSPA, include the foflowing:\nhazardous materials detected by American Airlines and American Eagle at Miami International\nTemporary Storage of Hazardous Materials: As a result of the number and volume of\npassenger terminal building of MiA. However, AMR is concerned that establishing a temporan\nAirport (MIA), efforts have been underway of establishing a temporary storage area within the\nstorage facility, specifically for materials not readily identifiable (i.e. non-manufacturers original\ncontainer), will present a safety hazard.\nRe-Transportation of Hazardous Materials: At locations were hazardous materials are\nmaterials to another location, or prepare for proper disposal. Movement of these materials occurs\ndetected and confiscated, AMR is placed in a position where they have to either move such\nvia surface, typically utilizing a company vehicle, or even a contractor. Disposal of these\nHowever, some of the materials confiscated consist of household commodities, and AMR is\nmaterials typically occurs with a hazardous waste company, who is contracted by AMR.\nattempting to donate fhese items to local charitable organizations.\nThese two above issues present a number of questions that we would like to raise to your\nattention, and either seek regulatory clarification or perhaps even the issuance of a special\nexemption.\nQuestion #1: If AMR places hazardous materials inside a temporary storage container after\nthis practice by AMR indirectly make them become a generator of hazardous waste?\nconfiscating the material from a passenger, are the materials considered in transportation? Does\nQuestion #2: If AMR transports these materials via surface, are the materials regulated under\nthe HMR? If they are regulated, could AMR apply for an exemption in order to move these\nitems? Does it matter whether or not these materials are contained inside the manufactures\noriginal container?\nof Florida, significant attention is being emphasized with respect to undeclared hazardous\nAs you may be aware from the attached letter from the United States Attorey, Southern District\nProgram Evaluation (HMPE) cited undeclared hazardous materials as a key issue facing the\nmaterials shipments in air transportation. In fact, the recent ONE-DOT Hazardous Materials\nindustry. The court ordered findings to date tends to further support these concerns.\nYour timely reply to these issues and questions is appreciated as we would like to offer AMR\nsome guidance.\nw wilkis\nWilliam G. Wllkening\nAttachments\ncc: Tony Gagliardi, U.S. Probation Officer\nElosia Fernandez, Assistant United States Attorney\nJeff O'Conner, Managing Director, Safety, Security and\nEnvironmental Compliance\n-","truncated":false,"body_characters":8881}