{"operation":"document","citation":"12-0084","title":"DOD Explosive Safety Board — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2012-07-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"12-0084 response to DOD Explosive Safety Board concerning 171.7.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0084.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0084.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0084","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2012/120084.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington. DC 20590\n'JUL 1 o 2012\nBrent E. Knoblett\nDOD Explosive Safety Board\n4800 Mark Center Drive Suite 16E12\nAlexandria, VA 22350\nRef. No. 12-0084\nDear Mr. Knoblett:\nThis responds to your letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to technical names. Specifically, you ask whether\nthe removal of§ 172.1 02( c)( 1) Special provision 101 in 2006 results in noncompliance for\ncertain Department of Defense (DOD) explosive shipments. You state that certain DOD\nexplosive shipments approved under generic descriptions such as \"Articles, explosive,\nn.o.s.\" were formerly assigned Special provision 101 in column 7 of the § 172.101\nHazardous Materials Table that required the name of the particular substance or article to be\nspecified as the technical name for the substance or article (e.g., \"Fuze, Grenade, M219A2\")\nin association with the basic description. You assert the current provisions in § § 1 71.8 and\n172.203(k) of the HMR do not permit technical names to be indicated in such a manner as\nformer Special provision 101 required.\nIn a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on\nAugust 31, 2006 (71 FR 51895), we proposed to remove § 172.1 02( c )(1) Special provision\n101. In the NPRM, we stated that with the introduction ofthe letter \"G\" in Column (1),\nwhich requires the n.o.s. and generic proper shipping names to be supplemented with the\ntechnical name ofthe hazardous material, Special provision 101 became obsolete.\nConsequently, because we did not receive public comment, the amendment was adopted as\nproposed in a final rule published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2006 (71 FR\n78596).\nWe intend to address this issue in a future rulemaking. In the interim, because DOD TB\n700-2 is incorporated by reference in its entirety in § 171.7 of the HMR, you may continue\nto use it as the authority for assigning technical names to certain explosive descriptions in\naccordance with former Special provision 101 as prescribed in DOD TB 700-2.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us ifwe can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\n~-~-~~--\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n.::Jevens\ne 112 : 1 D 'L s. P J al\nOpetl ~ ( pftJIIiS/t>ll March 30,2012\ntz .. oogq.-\nBrent E. Knoblett\nDepartment of Defense\nExplosive Safety Board\n4800 Mark Center Drive\nSuite 16E12\nAlexandria, VA 22350\nDear Director Betts,\nWhat happened to Special Provision 101 under 49 CPR 172.102, or perhaps more importantly,\nwhat happened to what it used to say? I believe that once upon a time it used to state \"The name\nof the particular substance or article must be specified.\" And it was in reference to assigning a\nTechnical Name as necessary under 49 CPR. I am asking this because during a recent DoD\nshipment our assigned Technical Name, \"Window Cutting Assembly\" (i.e., the name of the\narticle), was challenged by a FedEx rep as being non-compliant with 49 CPR. That got us\nlooking into the details, where we could no longer find SP 101 or any 49 CPR clause currently\nallowing a Technical Name to still be the article's name, and so now we're asking you for\nassistance. DoD's issue may become more systemically significant than that one instance\nmentioned above because I believe our updated draft TB 700-2 verbiage regarding assigning\nTechnical Names was based on what SP 101 used to say. That is, our draft TB text currently still\nallows a Technical Name to be the article's name, and since we've been unaware of SP 101 's fate\nsince crafting that TB text a long time ago, we probably have quite a number of records in our\nJHCS database that were executed in accordance with the protocol of allowing Technical Names\nto be article names. So does DOT agree with DoD publishing our specific Technical Name\nassignments text in draft updated TB 700-2 as is?\nThank you. Please don't hesitate to call me.\nBrent","truncated":false,"body_characters":4116}