{"operation":"document","citation":"06-0197","title":"United States Coast Guard — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2007-02-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"06-0197 response to United States Coast Guard concerning 172.101, 173.240, 176.415.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0197.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0197.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0197","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060197.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n.S. Departmen\nf Transportatio\n400 Seventh Street, S.W\nWash ngton, D.C. 20590\nipeline an\nAdministration\nazardous Materials Safel\nFEB 8 2007\nMST2 Danielle Galligan\nUnited States Coast Guard\nRef. No. 06-0197\n1519 Alaskan Way South\nSeattle, WA 98134\nDear MST2 Galligan:\nThis is in response to your August 24, 2006 letter requesting clarification on the shipping of\nAmmonium nitrate under § 176.415(b)(I) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;\n49 CFR Parts 100-180). Specificaliy, you ask for clarification on acceptable packaging for\nshipping \"Ammonium nitrate, Division 5.1 (oxidizer) UN1942\" without a permit under\n§ 176.415(b)(1) by vessel from Puget Sound to Nome, Alaska.\nAccording to your letter, one of your facilities currently transports Ammonium nitrate under\nthe permit requirements specified in § 176.415(a) of the HMR. Your facility is requesting to\ntransport twice the amount authorized for this material under the exception in §\n176.415(b)(1). This exception allows Ammonium nitrate, Division 5.1 (oxidizer) UN1942\nis packaged in a rigid packaging with a non-combustible inside packaging. Your questions\nare paraphrased and answered below:\nQ1. May a freight container be used as a rigid packaging?\nAl.\nThe answer is yes. As specified in the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT),\nthe authorized packaging for Ammonium nitrate, Division 5.1 (oxidizer) UN1942\ncan be found under § 173.240 \"Bulk packaging for certain low hazard solid\nmaterials.\" Paragraph (c) of § 173.240 specifies that a sift-proof, non DOT-\nspecification, closed bulk bin is as an acceptable packaging for this material. As\ncubic feet or more, designed and constructed to permit being lifted with its contents\ndefined in § 171.8, a freight container is a reusable container having a volume of 64\nintact and intended primarily for containment of packages (in unit form) during\nransportation. Therefore, a sift-proof freight container would satisfy th\nequirements of a non-DOT specification, closed bulk bin as required unde\npazeing for Ammonium nirit, Division S1 (osizen) UN1942 as required under\n§ 176.415(b)(1).\n173.24 C\n176.41561\n172.101\n060197\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ2.\nIs a woven plastic super sack considered \"non-combustible\"?\nA2.\nThe answer is no. While the HMR do not specifically define a \"non-combustible\nignition source, it is \"combustible.\" A woven plastic super sack is such a packaging,\npackaging,\" it is our opinion that if a packaging burns or ignites from a flammable\nand therefore does not conform to the provisions specified\n§ 176.415(b)(1).\n§ 176.415(b)(1) which allows Ammonium nitrate, Division 5.1 (oxidizer) UN1942 to be\nAlthough a freight container would meet the requirements specified under\nloaded or unloaded from a vessel at any waterfront facility without a permit, a voven plastic\nsuper sack is a combustible packaging and would not meet this requirement. Therefore,\nyour shipment must comply with the U.S. Coast Guard permit requirements specified in\n§ 176.415(a).\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry.\nSincerely,\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\niNFOCNTR <PHMSA>\nFoster\nSent:\nFrom:\ndanielle.p.galligan@uscg.mil\n$173.240\nSubject:\nTo:\nINFOCNTR <PHMSA>\nInformation Center Comments/Questions\n3176.415(b)\nPackagings\nMST2 Danielle Galligan (danielle.p.galligan@uscg.mil)\nBelow is the result of your feedback form.\nwas submitted by\n1.7:21:26.\non Thursday, August 24, 2006 at\nEmail:\ncanielle.p.galligan@uscg.mil\nName:\nMST2 Danielle Galligan\nCategory:\n173.476)\nShippers-General Requirements for Shipments\nand Packagings (Sections 173.1 -\nOrganization: U.S. Coast Guard\nStreet: 1519 Alaskan Way S.\nCity: seattle\nState: Washington\nZ:p Code: 98134\nPhone:\n(206)217-6165\nFax:\n(206) 217-6227\nir. the COTP Puget Sound ACR\nComments: One of our 33 CFR 126/105 container facilities (Northland Services, Inc.) here\nfacility domestically\nis requesting to ship UN1942, Ammonium Nitrate from their\ntherefore becomes a permit requiring material and an explosive arc in-which maximum weight\nBecause of the packaging that is being used it\nmaterials that is authorized and our staff told them that if they changed the packaging of\nlimitations are set on the facility. The facility wants to bring in twice the amount of\nbe required to submit a permit (49 CFR 176.415 (b) (1)) and could as much as they would\nthe material to ridged outer and non combustible inner packages that they would no longer\nan outer package (they went to PHMSA and CG HQ on this), and if the woven plastic super\nfacility then asked for a determination if a fright container could be used as\nNo. 03-0325) their package does not meet the definition of \"non-combustible\".\nsack could be considered \"non-combustible\". According to a DOT interpretation letter (Ref.\nEarlier this morning we had a conference call with CITAT (MSTCS Stubblefield & MST1\nBornhorst).\nDuncan), CGHQ - G-PSO-3..Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (Mr. Richard\nHerzog) and here at USCG Sector Seattle (LT Thompson, ENS Pauser, MST1 Savage, MST1 Dryer\nand USDOT\n- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (Mr. Kenny\nand myself, in order for everyone to have the entire scenario on this UN 1942 shipment in\nthe local level could move forward as appropriate.\nand then as a group come up with a decision on a national level so that we at\nAfier this group discussion the determination was made that a shipping container is not\nfrom DOT regarding the definition of \"non-combustible\" inner packaging wich this proposed\nconsidered \"rigid outer packaging.\"\nThere was already an earlier interpretation letter\nshipment method does not meet that definition as discussed in the conference call.\nWith all that said,\nline with what our\ninitial determination was locally.\nit appears that we are now all on the same page which seems to be in\nletter of interpretation regarding this issue so that we can use it as a reference for\nWe are requesting DOT\nhoping to have this interpretation as\nthis issue as well as any possible future issues that may be similar in nature.|\nsoon as possible to clear the air of any confusion\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nby this facility.","truncated":false,"body_characters":6157}