{"operation":"document","citation":"13-0011","title":"URS Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2013-03-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"13-0011 response to URS Corporation concerning 173.164.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0011","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2013/130011.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\nMAR 2 7 2013\nMr. Andrew N. Romach\nRegulatory Compliance Manager\nURS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\nSuite 400\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nReference No.: 13-0011\nDear Mr. Romach:\nThis is in response to your January 8, 2013 letter and follow-up telephone discussions\nrequesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-\n180). You ask several questions pertaining to § 173.164(a)(5), an exception for mercury\nlamps, when transported as cargo aboard an aircraft. This exception was recently codified\ninto the HMR pursuant to a final rule published under Docket HM-215L (78 FR 987),\nHazardous Materials: Harmonization with International Standards (RRR).\nSection 173.164(a)(5) provides: When transported as cargo, lamps are excepted from the\nrequirements of this subchapter provided, each lamp contains not more than 1 g of mercury\nand is packaged so that there is not more than 30 g of mercury per package. Packages must\nbe so designed and constructed such that when dropped from a height of not less than 0.5\nmeter (1.5 feet) the packages must still be fit for transport and there must be no damage to\nthe contents.\nYour questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1. The drop test for packages is not specific. How should the drop test be performed?\nAl. Although no specific requirements for the test are prescribed, it is our position that the\npackage would have to pass a drop onto a rigid, non-resilient, flat and horizontal surface\nwith the package dropped from an orientation that would most likely result in damage to the\npackage making it unsuitable for transportation or the release of contents from the package.\nQ2. What does the phrase, \"no damage to the contents\" mean?\nA2. The general requirement of the HMR is that there would be no damage to the contents\nthat would allow the release of the hazardous materials from the package.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3. If a shipper has numerous lamp product types containing low quantities of mercury that\ncould meet this exception, could a representative package containing the most fragile\ncontents be tested and extrapolate the test results to packages containing comparable or more\nrobust contents?\nA3. Provided all other parameters of the package and its contents remain the same, a test\nconducted using the most fragile contents would meet the test requirement for a package\ncontaining comparable or more robust contents. However, changes to a package or its\ncontents, such as greater mass, or a change in the configuration or orientation of the contents\nwithin the package may affect the outcome of the test. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of\nthe manufacturer or shipper to ensure the completed package meets the requirements of the\ntest.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nQL~\nDelmer Billings\nSenior Regulatory Advisor\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nJanuary 8, 2013\nMr. Charles Betts, Division Director\nStandards and Rulemaking (PHH-1 0)\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Betts:\nI am writing to ask for a written clarification concerning an exception for the proper shipping name\n\"Mercury contained in manufactured articles,\" which was adopted January 7, 2013, in HM-215L\n(\"Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With the United Nations Recommendations, International\nMaritime Dangerous Goods Code, and the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical\nInstructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air\") and applies to lamps when shipped\nas cargo. This exception found in 49 CFR 173 .164( a)( 5) allows:\n(5) When transported as cargo, lamps are excepted from the requirements of this subchapter\nprovided, each lamp contains not more than 1 g of mercury and is packaged so that there is\nnot more than 30 g of mercury per package. Packages must be so designed and\nconstructed such that when dropped from a height of not less than 0.5 meter (1.5 feet)\nthe package must still be fit for transport and there must be no damage to the contents.\n[Balded text added for emphasis.}\nI am writing to seek clarification about the above-described drop test.\n1. If a shipper has numerous lamp product types (> 350) containing low quantities of mercury\n(and more product types continually being added) that could meet this exception, could a\nrepresentative/worst case package be drop tested such that the test results could be\nextrapolated to all of the packages containing comparable or less fragile contents?\n2. Does the phrase \"no damage to contents\" mean no release of mercury from the lamp? (The\nmercury is well sealed inside of the lamp.) Or does this phrase mean a delicate filament\ninside the lamp could not break? Or does this phrase mean that an interior cardboard divider\ninside of the package could not bend?\nI would appreciate your assistance with these questions.\nSincerely,\nAndrew N. Romach\nRegulatory Compliance Manager\nURS Corporation","truncated":false,"body_characters":5220}