{"operation":"document","citation":"09-0168","title":"Baker Hughes — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2009-08-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"09-0168 response to Baker Hughes concerning 172.504, 173.29.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0168.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0168.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0168","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090168.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. Aubrey R. Campbell\nBaker Hughes\n12645 West Airport Boulevard\nSugar Land, Texas 77478\nRef. No.: 09-0 168\nDear Mr. Campbell:\nThis responds to your July 15, 2009 letter regarding the applicability of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to the highway shipment of non-bulk\ndrums containing only the residue of a hazardous material. You ask whether your shipment is\neligible for the exceptions provided in (i 173.29(c) and 4 172.504(d).\nThe answer is yes. Generally, packagings containing a residue of a hazardous material must\nbe transported in the same manner as when they previously held a greater quantity of the\nmaterial. However, in accordance with 5 173.29(c), a non-bulk packaging containing only the\nresidue of a hazardous material covered by Table 2 of 5 172.504 is excepted from shipping\npaper and placarding requirements when collected and transported by a contract or private\ncarrier for reconditioning, remanufacture, or reuse. Furthermore, in accordance with\n&j 172.504(d), except for hazardous materials subject to 5 172.505, a non-bulk packaging that\ncontains oilly the residue of a hazardous material covered by Table 2 of 9 172.504 need not be\nincluded in determining placarding requirements. Provided your shipments meet these\nrequirements, then you are eligible to utilize the exceptions provided in 4 173.29(c) and\n9 172.504(d).\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reiaventioll\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nBaker Petrolite fl /eke\n3172 56qcd)\n5 1 7 3 2 4 BAKER\nr!&ail\nTkmardinq E~dq HUGHES\n%&<yes1 il 12645 West Airport ~ l v d .\nSugar Land, Texas 77478\nP.O. Box 5050\n0 9 0 ) 8 Sugar Land. Texas 77487-5050\nTel28 1-276-5400\nFax 281-275-7385\nwww.bakerhughes.com\nJuly 15,2009\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, (PHMSA)\nAttn: PHH- 10\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nEast Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590-000 1\nRe: Letter of Interpretation\nDear Office of Hazardous Materials Standards:\nBaker Petrolite Corporation (BPC) requests a letter of interpretation regarding the\nprovisions specified in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 172.504(d) ,\nException for empty non-bulk packages and 173.29, Empty packages.\nOn of our drivers was cited by a law enforcement officer for not having placards affixed\nto the transport vehicle when carrying the residue of flammable liquids and corrosive\nmaterials in 16 non-bulk 55 gallon drums (please see attached shipping paper). The\ndrums were loaded on a flatbed trailer and clearly visible to the officer. BPC challenged\nthis citation by filing a DATAQ report on FMCSA website (please see attached challenge\nand response). We asked the law enforcement agency for clarity of 173.29 and\n172.504(d). We do not agree with the response and request PHMSA clarify the meaning\nof 173.29 and 172.504(d). As stated in our complaint, the drums were empty but not\ncleaned and purged, which meant we were required to properly describe, mark, and label\nthe non-bulk packages according to the HMR. If these drums were full, we understand\nthe requirement to affix placards to the transport vehicle because the aggregate gross\nweight of the 16 drum would have exceeded the 100 1 pound exception.\nAll of the drums contained residue only and the entire shipment weighed less that 300\npounds. We understand that empty non-bulk packages that contain the residue of a\nhazardous material covered by Table 2 need not be included in determining placarding\nrequirements according to 172.504(d). According to the officer, we should have\nplacarded the shipment because of the way 173.29 reads in that residue of hazardous\nmaterials must be offered in the same manner as when it previous contained a greater\nquantity of the hazardous material.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nThe officer understood this to mean that (16) 55 gallon drums (880 gallons) previously\ncontained an aggregate gross weight of 880 x 7 = 6160 pounds, which meant the\nshipment should have had placards affixed to the transport vehicle. Please provide clear\nguidance on 173.29 and 172.504(d) so we can comply with Federal, state, and local laws\naccordingly.\nSincerely,\nBaker Petrolite Corporation\nAubrey R! Campbell 1\nSenior Transportation Specialist","truncated":false,"body_characters":4538}