UPS — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1u.s. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 JUN 2 4 2013 Mr. Samuel Elkind Corporate Regulated Goods Manager United Parcel Service 55 Glenlake Parkway, NE Atlanta, GA 30328-34 74 Ref. No.: 13-0094 Dear Mr. Elkind: This responds to your May 1, 2013 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to limited quantity packages of mixed contents. For transportation by aircraft, you ask whether a shipper should use Table 3 in§ 173.27(£)(3), or the provisions in§ 173.24a(c)(l)(iv) when determining the maximum net quantity of each inner and outer packaging for limited quantity packages of mixed contents. As provided in § 173.27(£)(2), when a limited quantity of a hazardous material is packaged in a combination packaging and is intended for transportation aboard an aircraft, the inner and outer packagings must conform to the quantity limitations set forth in Table 3. Table 3 provides the maximum net quantity of each inner and outer packaging for materials authorized for transportation as a limited quantity by aircraft. For mixed contents of limited quantities by air, the shipper must comply with the maximum authorized net quantity of each outer package (column 4 of 5 in Table 3) and ensure that the total net quantity does not exceed the lowest permitted maximum net quantity per package as shown by hazard class or division for the hazardous materials in the mixed contents package. However, we do recognize that the intent of Table 3 in§ 173.27(£)(3) as compared to § 173 .24a( c )(1 )(iv) may be ambiguous in regard to limited quantity packages of mixed contents, and may consider revising the text in a future rulemaking. I hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. T. Glenn Foster Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division#

Page 255 Glenlake Parkway, NE Atlanta, GA 30328-3474 May 1, 2013 Mr. Charles Betts Director, Hazardous Materials Standards Division Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey A venue, SE Attn: PHH-1 0 -East Building Washington, DC 20590 Re: Use of Table 3 of 49 CPR 173.27(±)(3) for Limited Quantity Packages with Mixed Contents On behalf of UPS, Inc., I write to request regulatory guidance specific to the determination of the maximum allowed hazardous materials quantities for air packages containing mixed contents, which are also prepared under the Limited Quantity provisions (i.e. multiple materials prepared under Limited Quantities provisions, all packed in one outer package that is to be offered for air transport). The involvement of packages prepared under Limited Quantity provisions is important. The available guidance on mixed contents air shipments appears in § 173 .24a( c)( 1 )(iv ). However, this requirement points the shipper to Columns 9a and 9b of the § 172.101 Table for maximum package quantities; the total quantity of hazardous materials contained within a package must not exceed the most restrictive of the quantities shown in Column 9a or 9b for the materials contained within the package. This instruction, however, does not seem to be relevant to the circumstances of a Limited Quantity air shipment. The maximum package quantities in Columns 9a and 9b are specifically not applicable for packages prepared under Limited Quantity provisions; rather, the separate inner and outer package limits associated with packages offered under Limited Quantity provisions are spelled out in Table 3 of 49 CPR 173.27(£)(3). Additionally,§ 173.27(f)(2)(iii) indicates that "a completed [Limited Quantity] package may not exceed 30 kg gross weight." This background leads UPS to believe there may be a gap in the HMR concerning a mixed contents air shipment prepared under the Limited Quantity provisions. Table 3 of§ 173.27(£)(3) is normally relevant to both the inner and outer packaging restrictions applicable to Limited Quantity air shipments. UPS believes that it may also be applicable for shipments of mixed contents. However, the Table 3 column, "Maximum authorized net quantity for each outer package" exclusively provides the maximum outer package quantity for the specific hazard class or division and packing group combination from that row of Table 3. There is no discussion of circumstances in which the outer package contains more than one type of hazardous material.#

Page 3The lack of guidance in this connection has practical consequences, the outcome of which may not be entirely in accord with PHMSA's intended policy. For example, ifPHMSA's guidance is to restrict even a Limited Quantity mixed contents air shipment to the most restrictive of the quantities shown in Column 9a of §172.101, seemingly excessive package sizes may be the result. Conversely, the allowance of the individual § 173 .27(f)(3) Table 3 inner and outer package quantities appears to be a reasonable solution, providing a reasonably restricted quantity, while remaining within the constant gross weight limitation applicable to Limited Quantity packages of 30 kg. The values entered in the following table, showing hypothetical mixed contents air shipments, highlight some of the extremes of the problem at the heart of our inquiry. Hypothetical Packages of Mixed Contents, Packed under LTD QTY Provisions (Column 1) (Column 2) (Column 3) (Column 4) (Column 5) (Column 6) 172.101 Total per Column 9a 173.27(c)(3) 172.101 Total per Total per Net Table 3 Net Column 9a 173.27(c)(3) 173.27(c)(3) if UN Number, Quantity Quantity "most Table 3 "most individually Packing Group Limit Limit restrictive" restrictive" measured UN1263 PGIII 60L 10 L 60L 2L 12L UN3287, PGIII 60L 2L UN1263, PGII 5L lL 5L lL 2L UN1090, PGII 5L lL UN3178, PGIII 25kg lOkg 25kg 5kg 15kg UN2585, PGIII 25kg 5 kg As shown above, the mixed contents guidance currently available in the HMR leaves important questions unanswered where Limited Quantity air shipments are concerned. Reliance on the current § 173 .24a( c )(1 )(iv) yields unexpectedly large outer package limits that seem unlikely to be PHMSA's intended result, as shown in Column 4 in the table above. But UPS stresses that if PHMSA's intention is to guide users to Table 3 of§ 173 .27( c )(3), the text therein currently appears to be inadequate. A user cannot easily conclude whether a hybrid of the current §§ 173.24a(c)(l)(iv) and 173.27(c)(3) may apply, whereby the most restrictive outer package limit from Table 3 is intended (but not stated) to apply, as shown in Column 5 of the above table; or whether PHMSA intends to allow the assembly of compliant inner packages up to the maximum outer package limit of Table 3 for each present Class!Division and Packing Group, so long as the constant 30 kg gr()SS package limit is also satisfied, as shown in Column 6 of the above table. Accordingly, UPS looks forward to PHMSA's guidance in this matter. Your response will ensure the accuracy of both our communication to customers and our internal guidance for UPS processes. Sincerely, UJqLIJ Samuel S. Elkind Corporate Regulated Goods Manager#