{"operation":"document","citation":"04-0017","title":"Regulatory Resources, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2004-03-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"04-0017 response to Regulatory Resources, Inc. concerning 173.132.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0017.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0017.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0017","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2004/040017.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nWashington, D.G. 20590\nAdministration\nMAR - 9 2004\nMr. Wade A. Winters\nRef. No. 04-0017\n240 Joshua Road\nRegulatory Resources, Inc.\nKennewick, WA 99338\nDear Mr. Winters:\nThis responds to your January 14, 2004, letter requesting clarification on the classification criteria for\ntoxic materials under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nSpecifically, you ask if your urethane polymer product containing 89% bifenthrin, when shipped in a\nsolid pancake disk form, meets the defining criteria in § 173.132(d) for a Division 6.1 material at the\nPacking Group Ill level.\nAccording to the material safety data sheet enclosed with your letter, the toxic constituent (bifenthrin) in\nyour urethane polymer product does meet the defining criteria in § 173.132(d) for oral toxicity.\nHowever, you indicate that the physical form of the product that contains the toxic material makes\npoisoning unlikely. You state that, given the physical form of the product, which is a solid pancake-\nshaped disk approximately 4 inches by 4 inches and 0.125 inch thick, the product does not meet the\ndefining criteria in Part 173 and, thus, does not pose a risk in transportation.\nBased on the information provided, it is the opinion of this Office that, when shipped in the solid disk\nform, the bifenthrin contained in your urethane polymer product does not pose a risk in transportation\nbecause the bifenthrin is completely contained in the urethane polymer product. As you note, exposure\nto or ingestion of the bifenthrin contained in the urethane polymer product is extremely unlikely to occur.\nTherefore, in its solid disk form, your product does not meet the definition of a hazardous material and\nis not subject to the HMR.\nI hope this answers your inquiry.\nSincerely,\nUnas Lif\nSusan Gorsky\nSenior Transportation Regulations Specialist\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n173.183\n040017\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nBoothe\n§173.132\nHaz\nDefinition\nRegulatory\nCAt 2 deta Roads\nResources in.\n04-0017\nKennewick, WA 99338\nvoice: 509-628-1020\nfax: 509-628-0972\n\"The Source You Come Back To\".\nwade@regulatoryresources.net\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nJanuary 14, 2004\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nDHM-10\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\n400 7th St., S.W.\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\n173.132(d) of a urethane polymer product that is considered toxic (PG III) for transport when at a 23.75%\nRegulatory Resources, Inc. (RRI) is requesting a classification determination in accordance with 49 CFR\ninternational hazardous materials transport regulations and domestic hazardous waste management\nconcentration or greater. RRI is a small business that provides training and consulting in domestic and\nregulations.\nA question recently arose as to the applicability of toxicity when the route and means of toxicity is unlikely.\nbasically like that of the Rhino Linings® sprayed in truck beds. The primary urethane product is a pancake\nThe question concerns a polymerized urethane product. The physical attributes of the product are\nshaped disk approximately 4 inches by. 4 inches and 0.125 inch thick. Two other product sizes may also\n89%, has an oral LD50 (rat) of 53.4 mg/kg. and an inhalation toxicity (rat) of 3.2 mg/L (adjusted for a one hour\nThe toxicity constituent in the urethane product is the pesticide bifenthrin (MSDS attached). Bifenthrin, at\nHazardous Material Regulations in 49 CFR 173.132(b)(3)iii) and RPSA have already indicated that the\nexposure). The concentration of bifenthin in the urethane product does not exceed 40%. The DOT\ninhalation toxicity route is not applicable since the urethane product containing the pesticide material, in\ntransport, is not respirable as a dust nor available as a vapor (vp <1.8E-7mm Hg @ 25°C).\n\"Your zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate shipped as a dust is classified as a poisonous material because\nit meets the acute inhalation toxicity criteria in §173.132 for Class 6, Division 6.1 material. When\n(oral, dermal, and inhalation)..\" [Letter, RSPA to Ms. Denese A Deeds, CIH, 1995]\nshipped in the micropearl form, the zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate does not meet the toxic criteria\n\"If your hazardous material is in a form due to its low vapor pressure such that it cannot readily\ndoes not have to be considered in the determination of whether or not it is a poison under the\nvaporize or mist under conditions normally incident to transportation, then that route of exposure\nHMR.\" [Letter, RSPA to Mr. James R. Barrett, January 29, 1997]\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n240 Joshua Road\nRegulatory Resources, Inc.\nVoice: 509-628-1020\n• Kennewick, WA 99338\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nFax: 509-628-0972\nJanuary 14, 2004\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nPage 2\nAlthough the oral toxicity test data indicates the material is toxic, the physical form of the product which\nbite a piece of the urethane product, a feat requiring the jaw strength of a pit bull. Even ingestion of the\ncontains the pesticide makes poisoning unlikely. To ingest the product someone would have to physical\ndeliberate ingestion occured, not likely cause acute poisoning since it is not digestible. Further, bifenthrin\none inch square urethane product would require persistent effort. The urethane product would, if\nitself has moderate stability in soil and is not mobile. In the unlikely event of a release in transport,\nenvironmentai concerns are basically eliminated since the pesticide is bound in the urethane product (one\npurpose of this product is direct application to soil as a sheeting barrier for insects).\nconcerning the classification of the product to the Division 6.1 toxicity criteria. RRi believes the product is\nGiven the physical nature of the urethane product containing the bifenthrin, RRI seeks RSPA's opinion\nin a form that does not pose a risk under conditions normally incident to transportation.\nI appreciate you attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional\ninformation.\nFor Regulatory Resources, Inc.,\nPresident\nWade A. Winters, CET, CHMM\nEnclosures\nWAW/lom","truncated":false,"body_characters":6152}