{"operation":"document","citation":"09-0044","title":"Restek Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-01-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"09-0044 response to Restek Corporation concerning 173.124.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0044.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0044.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0044","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090044.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nU.S. Department Washington, DC 20590\nofTransportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration JAN 2 8 '2JiJ\nMr. Erik Perrin, CSP\nEHS Manager\nRestek Corporation\n110 Benner Circle\nBellefonte. P A 16823\nRef. No. 09-0044\nDear Mr. Perrin:\nThis responds to your letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) as applicable to the approval of desensitized explosives. You\nask whether a change of diluent meeting the same hazard class and mass would be authorized\nwithout further examination. An example you cite in your letter is a previously examined,\nclassed and approved desensitized explosive mixture containing 1 % RDX and 99% acetone.\nBecause the mixture exhibits characteristics of the solvent and not the explosive substance\nwhen examined and tested, you ask if an alternative diluent of the same hazard class, packing\ngroup and concentration, such as methanol, could be substituted for the acetone without\nobtaining approval from the Associate Administrator.\nAs specified in § 173.124(a), unless the mixture is specifically listed by name in the § 172.101\nHazardous Materials Table (HMT), all desensitized explosive mixtures are assigned a\nshipping name and hazard class by the Associate Administrator under the provisions of either\na special permit or approval. Furthermore, most desensitized explosive mixtures specifically\nlisted by name in the HMT also require approval before they may be offered for\ntransportation. Thus, written approval must be issued by the Associate Administrator if an\nalteration is made to any constituent within a desensitized explosive mixture unless the\nalteration is specifically listed by name in the HMT or is authorized in an assigned § 172.102\nspecial provision.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have additional questions.\nSincerely,\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n=liC~Li:<\n5teve.Vl S\n_\"\"'-~\"\"'It.. ~ J73· 6<0\nor10 s i V€-J I\ne;,ot - 00'-17\n*\n*\n*\n*\nChromatography Products 110 Benner Circle\nBellefonte, PA 16823\n814-353-1300\n800-356-1688\nwww.restek.com\n'I\nJanuary 4, 2008\nEdward T. Mazzullo\nDirector\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n1200 New Jersey Ave. SE\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nSubject: Request for Interpretation (49CFR 173.56)\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nMy question pertains to the manufacture of Analytical Reference Materials (ARM) for the chromatography\nindustry. ARM Standards contain extremely low percentages of explosive material completely dissolved in\nsolvent. These mixes are packaged in glass ampules and are used in a variety of laboratory testing\nprocesses. These laboratory standard solutions are used to calibrate laboratory equipment or analyze and\nevaluate other chemical samples. A TF has detennined that explosive materials used in laboratory standard\nsolutions, such as the items outlined here, fall within the Federal regulation at 27CFR 555 Subpart - H\nExemptions. 27CFR 555.141 (a) (9) allows for the use ofthese explosive materials as industrial and\nlaboratory chemicals which are intended for use as reagents and which are packaged and shipped pursuant\nofDOT regulations.\nExtensive testing has been completed on these products and results have indicated that that the solutions\ndisplay the properties ofthe solvent and not the explosive. Due to these solutions not meeting the criteria\nfor Class 1 Materials, would I be correct in concluding that the materials do not need to be classified as a\nnew explosive?\nIf these items are considered new explosives and DOT classification approval is required, would a new\napproval be necessary each time a solvent is changed? Example; DOT Classifies 1% RDX combined with\n99% Acetone as a desensitized explosive. Due to customer request, ifthe solvent were substituted to 99%\nMethanol, would this be considered a new explosive?\n49CFR 173.56 defmes a new explosive;\n(a) Defmition ofnew explosive. For the purposes ofthis subchapter a new explosive means an explosive\nproduced by a person who: (1) Has not previously produced that explosive; or (2) Has previously\nproduced that explosive but has made a change in the formulation, design or process so as to alter any of\nthe properties ofthe explosive.\nIn the scenario above, while there has been a change in fonnulation, the change has not altered any ofthe\nproperties ofthe explosive. Would I be correct in concluding that the material would not meet the\ndefinition ofa new explosive?\nI thank you for your interpretation and look forward to your response.\nSincerely\nb~'\nErik Perrin, CSP\nEHS Manager\nRestek Corporation","truncated":false,"body_characters":4702}