{"operation":"document","citation":"07-0079","title":"National Institute of Standards and Technology — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2007-06-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"07-0079 response to National Institute of Standards and Technology concerning 172.402, 173.4.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0079.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0079.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0079","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2007/070079.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Ave.. S.E\nWashington. DC 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nAdministration\nMaterials Safety\nJUN 12 2007\nNational Institute of Standards and Technology\nMr. Larry Lucas\nRef. No.: 07-0079\n100 Bureau Drive\nStop 8462\nGaithersburg, MD 20899-8462\nDear Mr. Lucas:\nThis is in response to your April 20, 2007 letter regarding subsidiary labeling requirements\nunder the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically,\nyou ask it a subsidiary hazard label is required for a package the meets the definition of a\nClass 7 (Radioactive) material and also meets the definition of a Class 8 (Corrosive) material.\nThe material in question is a solution of radioactive isotopes requiring a Class 7 hazard label\n(typically Yellow-II), and 5 milliliters (<1/5 ounce) of a Class 8 acid.\nSection 172.402(d) requires each package containing a Class 7 (Radioactive) material that\nalso meets the definition of one or more additional hazard classes to be labeled as a Class 7\n(Radioactive) material, as required by § 172.403, and for each additional hazard. However,\nthe material satisfies the requirements of § 173.4 (small quantity exception).\nan exception from the subsidiary labeling requirement is provided in § 172.402(d)(1) when\ncontact this office.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to\nSincerely.\nJohn A Gate i\"\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n172.402 (d)\n173.4\n070079\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nINFOCNTR <PHMSA>\nFrom:\nSent:\nLarry Lucas [larry.lucas@nist.gov]\nTo:\nFriday, April 20, 2007 6:00 PM\nEichenlaub\nSubject:\nCc:\nINFOCNTR <PHMSA>\nJanna Shupe; Corey Hankerson; Roy Parker\n3172.101\nRequest for Written Letter of Interpretation\n$173.4\n20 April 2007\nLabeling/Small Quantity Erceptio,\nRequest for Written Letter of Interpretation\n07-0079\ni talked with Chris on the HMR hotline yesterday and we both agreed that it would be i\nimportance of this issue to many other people.\njood idea for me to request a formal Written Letter of Interpretation because of thi\nThe situation is as follows:\nthan 10 years.\nshipped as Radioactive Material, Excepted Package - Limited Quantity of Material, UN2910\n(henceforth referred to as RMEP).\nThe majority of our radioactivity SRMs are solutions, with the radioactive material\ndissolved in (typically) 5 milliliters\nounce) of aqueous solution that also contains non-radioactive carrier and some acid\nthat it is acceptable aboard passenger\n(typically hydrochloric or nitric).\nThe final concentration of the acid is always such\nsealed glass ampoule surrounded by\ncontainment within a protective cardboard tube.\nabsorbent material and several layers of secondary\nThe solution is contained in a flame-\ncushioning material and contained in a UN4G fibreboard box as the outer container.\nThe cardboard tube is surrounded by\npackages meet the Type-A performance specifications, regardless of the final labeling.\nAl1\nhazard and one label (either the IATA DGEQ label or the DOT 173.4 conformance statement)\nMost of the packages are shipped with two labels: one RMEP label for the radioactivity\nfor the corrosive hazard. These package have never been an issue.\nMy question is about the packages we\nlived medical isotope contained or because of the dose rate) must be labeled with a Class\nship that (either because of the quantity of short-\n7 hazard label (typically II-Yellow).\n5 milliliters (<1/5 ounce) of acid solution.\nThe question is about the proper declaration of the\nrequire that once a package must be labeled with a hazard label for any Class, then all\nIt seems that the present regulations\nother hazard classes must also have Class labels (and be declared as subsidiary risks)\nwithout regard to the quantity of material in that Class (even one drop).\nexample above, the II-Yellow label must be accompanied by\n• a Class 8 Corrosive label and\nThus, in the\nthe acid solution must be declared as a subsidiary risk (8).\nare any other options.\nThank you and best regards,\nLarry Lucas, Research Chemist\nMD 20899-8462\nNational Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8462 Gaithersburg,\nTelephone: 1-301-975-5546\nFacsimile: 1-301-926-7416\nEmail: larry.lucas@nist.gov\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":4259}