{"operation":"document","citation":"13-0129","title":"Lockheed Martin Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2013-11-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"13-0129 response to Lockheed Martin Corporation concerning 173.62.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0129.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0129.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0129","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2013/130129.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\nNOV 1 2 Z013\nMs. Mary P. Morningstar\nLockheed Martin Corporation\n6801 Rockledge Drive, MP 223\nBethesda, MD 20817\nReference No. 13-0129\nDear Ms. Morningstar:\nThis is in response to your June 18, 2013 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the transportation of\nexplosives. Your questions are paraphrased and answered below:\nQ 1: You ask for clarification on the use of approvals issued to the Department of Defense\n(DOD). You note that the approvals issued to DOD contain the statement ''These\nitems are authorized for transportation only when transported by, or under the\ndirection or supervision of, a component of the DOD.\" You ask if it is permissible\nfor Lockheed Martin, as an integral part of the DOD supply chain, to use such\napprovals for the transportation of explosives under its DOD contracts.\nAl: The answer is yes. Provided Lockheed Martin is transporting explosives offered for\ntransportation by, or under the direction or supervision of a component of the DOD,\na separate approval would not be required.\nQ2: You also ask for clarification on the proper format for older EX numbers that do not\nhave expiration dates. You note that older explosives approvals are formatted as\n\"EX\" followed by seven digits. The current format is \"EX\" followed by ten digits,\nwith the first two digits indicating the year of issuance. You ask if it is permissible\nto use the old EX number forn1at for approvals that do not expire for the purposes of\npackage markings and shipping paper descriptions.\nA2: Currently, nothing in§ 172.320 prohibits the use of the old seven digit EX number\nformat for approvals that do not expire. However, any EX number with the seven\ndigit format must be associated with a current UN identification number and proper\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nshipping name. In addition, the EX number in the seven digit format must be\nassociated with a current packaging note within§ 173.62. If any of these items is no\nlonger current, the shipper must re-apply for an updated approval with a current/valid\nUN proper shipping name and packaging note.\nI trust this satisfies your request. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\n--~~V?07~.\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL\nJune 18, 2013\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nATTN: PHH-10\nU.S. Department of Transportation, East Building\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nRE: Letter of Interpretation Request for Explosives-Related Questions\nDear Sir or Madam:\nThe purpose of this Jetter is to request from the U.S. Department of Transportation (\"USDOT\") an\ninterpretation letter answering two questions related to the transportation of explosive materials.\nLockheed Martin Corporation (\"Lockheed Martin\"} is a multi-national corporation doing business in all\n50 states in the United States and internationally. Lockheed Martin regularly transports hazardous\nmaterials on public roads and by air and water, and routinely transports hazardous materials for its\nlargest customer, the U.S. Department of Defense (\"DOD\").\nIn the past, the DOD has requested USDOT Competent Authority Approvals (\"Approvals\") for explosives.\nSuch Approvals, when granted by USDOT, often include the sentence, \"These items are authorized for\ntransportation only when transported by, or under the direction or supervision of, a component of the\nDepartment of Defense.\" lockheed Martin understands that there may be a general unwritten\nconsensus among USDOT departments, including the HazMat Information Center, that the intent of this\nsentence is to restrict use of such explosives Approvals, particularly with regard to third parties who are\nnot related to the DOD through their supply chains. Lockheed Martin could infer that third parties who\nore part of the DOD supply chain could use such Approvals, and therefore a DOD contractor, such as\nLockheed Martin, could use such Approvals for transportation of explosives in support of lockheed\nMartin's DOD contracts.\nlockheed Martin's first request for interpretation is therefore as follows: Please clarify the criteria\nregarding the use of explosives Approvals that contain the sentence, \"These items are authorized for\ntransportation only when transported by, or under the direction or supervision of, a component of the\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nDepartment of Defense.\" Is it allowable for Lockheed Martin, as an integral part of the DOD supply\nchain, to use such Approvals for its transportation of explosives under its DOD contracts?\nSome of the US DOT Competent Authority Approvals for explosives contain expiration dates, and some\ndo not contain expiration dates. Older explosives Approvals are formatted as \"EX\" followed by seven\ndigits (e.g., EX8210067). The current format is \"EX\" followed by ten digits, with the first four digits being\nthe year of issue. When older Approvals are converted to new Approvals, the first two digits of the year\nare added in front of the seven-digit older number and an extra zero is added in front of the last three\ndigits (e.g., EX8210067 becomes EX1982100067). When Approvals expire and are reissued, USDOT may\nupdate the format of the Approval; however, for an Approval that does not have an expiration date, the\nshipper/offeror must decide the format of the Approval to mark on individual packages in compliance\nwith 49 CFR §172.320(a), or to indicate on shipping papers in compliance with 49 CFR §172.320(d), or in\nboth locations. For older Approvals containing the old format, if the shipper/offeror converts to the\nnew format, the EX# format marked on the package and/or indicated on the shipping description does\nnot exactly match the format appearing on the Approval document.\nTherefore, the second request for interpretation is as follows: Is it entirely optional for the\nshipper/offeror to use either the \"old\" or the ''new\" format, or is it mandatory under all or certain DOT-\nspecified circumstances that 110id\" format Approvals are converted to \"new\" format Approvals for\npurposes of package markings and/or shipping paper descriptions?\nlockheed Martin appreciates your attention to these questions, and I would be happy to discuss either\nor both with the appropriate person within the USDOT. My contact information is on my letterhead.\nThank you in advance for your assistance.\nSincerely,\n/< ~/ fr ' ' / ./ ....\n?~'\nMary P. Mdrningstar\n'' ,''' ''',. ''''' ·---\ncc: Allison Norris\nNorman A. Varney\nMichael Fiddis","truncated":false,"body_characters":6754}