06-0134
06-0134
Page 1J.S. Departmen f Transportatior Washington, D.C. 20590 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Hazire us Materials safety Administration JUN 29 2006 Mr. Adam Feldman Special Materials Company Ref. No.: 06-0134 262 West 38th Street New York, NY 10018 Dear Mr. Feldman: "Parachlorobenzotrifluoride" in accordance with the §173.120 of the Hazardous This responds to your letter dated June 6, 2006, regarding classification of your product Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You enclosed documents from several companies who tested this product and a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Special Materials Company imports "Parachloro benzotrifluoride" (PCBTF) from China, by vessel. PCBTF is a member of the "Chlorobenzotrifluoride" family of compounds. Parachlorobenzotrifluoride has a flash point greater than 35°C (95°F) and is 99.7 - 99% pure and shipped in ISO Tankers, packagings having a capacity of between 2,400 to 2,900 Liters. You stated that PCBTF is not subject to the provisions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code because it meets the definition in 2.3.1.3 for and you believe not regulated as a hazardous material under the IMDG Code. Class 3 materials, which do not sustain combustion. PCBTF is not a marine pollutant, company's ISO Tankers until tests are performed and a determination is made as to the However, the Shanghai Maritime Institute in China does not agree and has detained your "Parachlorobenzotrifluoride" is classed under the HMR as a hazardous material. correct classification of this product. Specifically, you ask whether Under §173.22 of the HMR, it is the shipper's responsibility to properly classify a hazardous material. This office generally does not perform this function. The criteria for a Class 3 material is found in $173.120 of the HMR. As specified in } 173.120(a)(3), any liquid with a flash point greater than 35°C (95°F) that does no sustain combustion according to ASTM D 4206 or the procedure in Appendix H of Par 173 does not meet the definition of a Class 3 (flammable liquid). In addition, as specified in §173.120(b)(3), a combustible liquid that does not sustain combustion is not subject to the HMR. Based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that your company's product, "Parachlorobenzotrifluoride", does not meet the definition for a 173.22 173.120 060134#
Page 2class definition would not be regulated for purposes of transportation in commerce. Class 3 (flammable/combustible liquid), and provided it does not meet any other hazard I hope this satisfies your inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Chief, Standards Development#
Page 3ng rum $173.22 classification special $173-120. 06-0134 262 West 38'h Street MATERIALS Tel 646-366-0400 New York, NY 10018 COMPANY Fax 646-366-0595 www.smc-global.com Date: June 6. 2006 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street - S. W. Washington DC 20590 Room 8421 Attn: Mr. Dwayne Phund, Dear Mr. Phund, Thank you for speaking with our offices this afternoon. As suggested, we have written this letter and attached what information we have concerning this product. Special Materials Company is an American Importer. We import chemicals from China. continuously trying to follow a Best Practices Style of Business with all our products. We Approximately seventy percent of our shipments are non hazardous, however we are are applying for C-TPAT Certification as well as membership in the National Association of Chemical Distributors. We have an issue in China that is causing us great concern. We import family of compounds. However PCBTF is not subject to the provisions of the IMDC. Parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF). PCBTF is a member of the chlorobenzotrifluoride Code because it does not sustain combustion. PCBTF is not a marine pollutant, and is not regulated as a dangerous good under any other provision of the Code. We have exported this product from China for a number of years. The Shanghai Maritime Institute has now detained our containers. This is having a significant impact on us. They have decided that this product is now hazardous. If this is upheld, we will be unable to ship as we have in the past, as the weight of the product and the hazardous regulations would be prohibitive. We sell this product to PPG and Sherwin- Williams to name only two.#
Page 4Page 2 Case Consulting Laboratories Inc. in New Jersey who tested this product for us in 2002. We have given the Shanghai Maritime Institute, the paperwork of tests conducted by the This states that under the procedure in 49CFR Ch 1. Pt 174 App H. "Method of Testing for Sustained Combustibility" this product exhibits no sustained combustion. The original manufacturer in the United States, Occidental has stated that this material is non-hazardous. However the Shanghai Maritime Institute does not consider this evidence acceptable. their testing laboratories have the appropriate equipment. However in the meantime our They are arranging for their own testing in China. This is taking a time as not all of containers are backing up and the question that some of our merchandise may be misclassified is creating serious shipping problems for our company. The Shanghai Maritime Institute did suggest to our agents there, that a Letter from the containers now stalled in the pipeline. After much searching Mr. John Currie of The United States Maritime Agency or similar respected Agency might help release VOHMA suggested that you were the best choice to help us. Attached is a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet, copy of the Case Consulting Laboratories findings and an affidavit from Special Materials Company issued last year. We are grateful for your assistance in this issue, and will cooperate with you in any way. We can to provide information to assist your Department in issuing this letter of Classification to the Shanghai Maritime Administration. Sincerely Adam Feldman Principal#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.