{"operation":"document","citation":"11-0047","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":"2011-05-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"11-0047 response to HMT Associates, L.L.C. concerning 173.27.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0047.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0047.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0047","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/110047.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMAl 12 au\nMr. Edward A. Altemos\nHMT Associates, L.L.e.\n603 King St., Suite 300\nAlexandria, VA 22314-3105\nReference No. 11-0047\nDear Mr. Altemos,\nThis is in response to your e-mail and our subsequent conversation requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to Special Provision\n(SP) 47, found in § 172.102(c)(I) of the HMR. You state that you are transporting \"Solids\ncontaining flammable liquids, n.o.s.,\" (UN3175) which provides SP 47, and request clarification\nof the second sentence in SP 47 that reads as follows:\nExcept when the liquids are fully absorbed in solid material contained in sealed bags, each\npackaging must correspond with a design type that has passed a leakproofness test at the\nPacking Group II level.\nYou request confirmation of your opinion that this provision is not intended to apply to the inner\npackagings of combination packagings.\nYour understanding is correct. A leakproofness test is not required for the inner packaging of a\ncombination packaging. It should be noted, however, that for combination packagings to be\nshipped by air, the inner packagings must meet the pressure differential capability requirements\nspecified in § 173.27(c).\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office should you have additional\nquestions.\nSincerely,\nr7#~~-\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nFrom: Betts, Charles (PHMSA) Me In+4r~\nSent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:46 PM\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) :a 1/2..· 102 si=>'17\nSubject: FW: Question on SP 47, 172.102(c}(1} Spec./al P(()viS/OMf>\nCarolyn ­ t t - 00 t-J'1\nPlease log in this request for clarification and assign for proper handling.\nThanks,\nCharles\nFrom: Altemos, Edward A. [mailto:ealtemos@pipeline.com]\nSent: Thursday, February 17, 201111:25 AM\nTo: Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nSubject: Question on SP 47, 172.102(c}(1}\nHello Charles,\nI hope you can provide a quick reality check on my interpretation of Special Provision 47 in 172.102(c}(1} of the HMR.\nThis attached to the HMT entry \"Solids containing flammable liquids, n.o.S.\" (UN3175).\nThe second sentence in SP 47 states: \"Except when the liquids are fully absorbed in solid material contained in sealed\nbags, each packaging must correspond to a design type that has passed a leakproofness test at the Packing Group II\nleveL\" My question is whether this provision is intended to apply to the inner packagings of combination packagings. My\nview, for the following reasons, is that it is not intended to, and your confirmation (or otherwise) would be appreciated.\nFirst of all, as the sentence is written a leakproofness test capability would not be required if the solid containing\nflammable liquid was in a \"sealed bag\". This makes sense for a single packaging, but if it is intended to apply equally to\ninner packagings of combination packagings it is a peculiar requirement in that only if bags are used is the leakproofness\ntest unnecessary. If the solid containing flammable liquid were packed, for example, in sealed glass, plastic, or metal\ncontainers, the test would be necessary. This doesn't make much sense in that sealed glass, plastic or metal inner\npackagings would certainly afford equal, and most probably significantly greater protection against leakage of liquid than a\nsealed plastic bag. This suggests that this provision was intended to apply to single packagings such as drums, for which\nthe leakproofness test would not be required if the solid containing flammable liquid material were in a sealed bag (liner)\nwithin the single packaging.\nIn addition, the sentence in question speaks to \"a design type that has passed a leakproofness test.\" Again, only single\npackagings for liquids are required, as a \"design type,\" to be subjected to leakproofness testing as a design qualification\ntest. Leakproofness testing is not applicable to inner packagings. So, again, as worded this provision appears to me to\nbe directed towards Single packagings and not the inner packagings of combination packagings.\nAs an aside, I note that the sentence in question does not appear in the corresponding UN Special Provision 216.\nPerhaps a future alignment with the UN test would resolve this issue - or at least explicitly stating that the leakproofness\ntest requirement applies only to single packagings would clarify intent and applicability.\nYour confirmation of my thinking regarding the non-applicability of the sentence in question to the inner packagings of\ncombination packagings will be much appreciated! For your information, I ask the question in consideration of a limited\nquantity material that would be reclassed (at least for the present time) as an ORM-D consumer commodity. Thanks for\nyour consideration.\nBest regards,\nAndy\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nP.S. I checked the available interpretation letters, and could not find one that addressed this issue (although, to be\nhonest, I thought I remembered seeing something about it in the past).\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":5216}