{"operation":"document","citation":"06-0180","title":"HMT Associates, L.L.C — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2006-10-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"06-0180 response to HMT Associates, L.L.C concerning 173.115, 173.22.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0180.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0180.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0180","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060180.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nS. Departmel\nf Transportatic\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nHazardous Materials Safety\nPipeline and\nOCT 12 2006\nAdministration\nMr. E.A. Altemos\nHMT Associates, L.L.C.\nRef. No. 06-0180\n603 King St., Suite 300\nAlexandria, VA 22314-3105\nDear Mr. Altemos:\ndescription, and associated transportation requirements for materials under the Hazardous\nThis is in response to your August 1, 2006 letter regarding the proper classification,\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you state your\nproduct, solid carbon dioxide, contains an ozone concentration which is above the typical\nnaturally-occurring concentrations and has been added to your product during the\nmanufacturing process. You ask whether, because the ozone concentration in your\nmaterial does not meet the definition of a Division 2.3 gas, the proper shipping name,\n\"Carbon dioxide, solid or Dry ice\" (UN 1845) is the proper classification and description\nof your material.\nhazardous material in accordance with Parts 172 and 173 of the HMR, and to determine\nSection 173.22 of the HMR requires a shipper to properly class and describe the\nthat the packaging or container is an authorized packaging in accordance witi: Part 173.\nconcentration does not meet the definition of any hazard class or division in the HMR,\nThis Office does not perform that function. However, if you determine that the ozone\nincluding Division 2.3, and is not a hazardous substance or hazardous waste, \"Carbon\ndioxide, solid or Dry ice\" (UN 1845) would be the proper classification and description\nof your material.\nI hope this intormation is helpful.\nSincerely,\nTom s. Gale,\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n173.22\n060180\n173.115\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nFoster\n3173.22\n§ 173-115\nHMT ASSOCIATES, I.I.c. Shipper's Responsehra\nDefinition\nALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-3105\n06-0180\n703-549-0727\nFACSIMILE: 703-549-0728\nWRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER\n(703) 549-0727, Ext. 11\nAugust 1, 2006\nDr. Charles Ke\nSciences Branch (PHH-21)\nOffice of Hazardous Materials\nTechnology\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nDear Dr. Ke:\nThis is to request your confirmation of the proper classification, description, and associated\ntransport requirements applicable under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (\"the HMR\", 49 CFR\nParts 171-180) to solid carbon dioxide which contains a concentration of ozone that is above the\ntypical naturally occurring concentration.\nThe material concerned is solid carbon dioxide (\"dry ice\") which may be in pellet, block, or\nother solid form, and which contains a generally uniform distribution of ozone which has been added\nto the material during the manufacturing process. The approximate concentration of ozone in the\nmaterial is 20 ppm (by weight). As you know, gaseous ozone would meet the criteria for\nclassification in Division 2.3, and would exhibit other hazardous characteristics (i.e., strong\noxidizing properties). However, owing to the relatively low concentration of the ozone in the\nmaterial, the gas evolved as the material sublimes does not meet the criteria for classification in\nDivision 2.3, does not exhibit the characteristics of an oxidizing gas for purposes of transport\nclassification, and poses essentially the same hazard in transportation as does the carbon dioxide that\nis evolved by the sublimation of \"normal\" dry ice.\nBased on the foregoing, it is my conclusion that the dry ice/ozone mixture described above\nposes a hazard in transportation essentially no different from that of \"normal\" dry ice. Consequently,\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.\nAugust 1, 2006\nDr. Charles Ke\nPage 2\nIbelieve this material can be properly described as \"Carbon dioxide, solid or Dry ice\" (UN 1845),\nclassified in Class 9, and transported under the requirements and exceptions in the HMR as\napplicable to a material so described. Your confirmation of this conclusion is requested.\nShould you disagree with this conclusion, your guidance is requested as to the proper\nclassification and description of the material for transportation. As offered for transportation, neither\nthe material itself nor the gas evolved from it would meet the criteria for classification in any hazard\nclass. With regard to Class 9, as you know there are no quantitative criteria for classification in this\n\"miscellaneous\" hazard class. While this material may nevertheless be considered a candidate for\nclassification in Class 9 under the qualitative criteria in § 173.140(b) and description as an \"Aviation\nregulated solid, n.o.s.\" (UN 3335), this is considered inappropriate for this material for two reasons.\nFirstly, unlike use of the \"Dry ice\" description, use of this proper shipping name would result in the\nmaterial being considered regulated in air transportation but not for transportation by vessel. In\naddition, the packaging required for aviation regulated solids (§ 173.204) - unlike the packagings\nprescribed for dry ice (§ 173.217) - does not provide for the necessary release of the sublimed gas\nfrom the packaging in order to prevent rupture or failure of the packaging during transport. For these\nreasons, if this material is not classified in Class 9 and described as \"Carbon dioxide, solid or Dry\nice\" (UN 1845), it is entirely unclear how it should be classified and described under the HMR in\nthat there is no other available classification and description that will ensure application of the\nappropriate conditions, limitations, and packaging requirements on its transport.\nIn closing, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or need additional\ninformation concerning this matter. Thank you for your consideration of this request, and I look\nforward to your response at your earliest opportunity.\nSincerely,\ncadet\nE. A. Altemos\ncc:\nMr. Ed Mazzullo (PHH-10)","truncated":false,"body_characters":5883}