HMT Associates, LLC — 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 FEB 1 2 2014 Mr. E. A. Altemos HMT Associates, LLC 603 King St., Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314-3105 Ref. No. 13-0228 Dear Mr. Altemos: This responds to your November 22, 2013 letter requesting clarification of the applicability of the air transport requirements for friction-type closures under the hazardous materials regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you seek confirmation that a "snap-type" cap for a marker pen is not considered a friction-type closure as used in § 173.167 ofthe HMR. In your letter. you describe a marker pen (i.e., a marker) containing small quantities of free liquid meeting the criteria for a Class 3, packing group II, flammable liquid. The marker is of such a design that the cap is secured to the barrel of the pen by means of "nubs" in the cap that securely engage grooves in the barrel. The cap "snaps" securely into place indicating proper closure. Furthermore, you point out that data show more than twice the force of an external vacuum subjected to the cap under atmospheric pressure is needed to remove the cap; and the minimum removal force in every case exceeds the force of the pressure differential. In addition, vibration tests have demonstrated that the cap remains secure when subjected to vibrations typically_ encountered during the course of transportation. It is your understanding that the closure you describe is not considered a friction-type closure for purposes of transporting consumer commodities (ID8000) in accordance with § 173.167 (as well as Packing Instruction Y963 of the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transportation of Dangerous Goods by Air) and therefore, is not subject to the requirement for a secondary means of securement applicable to friction-type closures.#

Page 2Your understanding is correct. A "snap-type cap" such as you describe in your letter would not be considered a friction-type closure for purposes of the§ 173.167 requirements for consumer commodities transported by air and thus, is not subject to the requirement for a secondary means of securement under§ 173.167(a). I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Robert Benedict Chief, Standards Development Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division#

Page 3Der /<,.nde re Y\ HMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.c. 9(73· l(p1 CoV1so mer ~om m ocl'rt,es 603KINGST. SVITE300 ALEXANDRL-\, VA 22314-3105 13·022B E.A. ALTEMOS PATRICIA A. QUINN 703-549-0727 FACSIMILIE: 703-549-0727 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 703-549-0727, ext. 11 November 22, 2013 Mr. Charles Betts Director, Standards and Rulemaking (PHH-1 0) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building, 2nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Dear Mr. Betts, This is to request confirmation of my understanding of the conclusion drawn at our recent meeting in which we discussed the closure requirements for certain marker pens ("Magic Markers") containing small quantities (i.e., not more than 6 mL, depending on the size of the marker) of free liquid ink meeting the criteria for classification in Class 3, Packing Group II. In particular, we considered whether the "closures" (i.e., the caps) used on these markers are considered "friction type" closures for purposes of air transport under §173.167 ofthe DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-180, "the HMR") and Packing Instruction Y963 of the ICAO Technical Instructions, and thus would be subject to the requirement that the closure be further secured by "positive means." In our discussion it was noted that when applied the cap is secured to the barrel of the marker by means of "nubs" in the cap which securely engage grooves in the barrel of the marker. When the cap is applied, it snaps securely into place indicating proper closure, thereby conforming to the requirement that the closure be designed so that it is extremely improbable that it can be incorrectly or incompletely closed and such that it can be easily checked for complete closure. Data from quality assurance reviews were considered that demonstrate that the average force required to remove the cap - both in respect to newly manufactured markers and markers that had been stored for an extended period (i.e., 30 days) at elevated temperature (55• C (130• F))- is.more than twice the#

Page 4HMT ASSOCIATES, L. L.C. Mr. Charles Betts November 22,2013 Page 2 force developed when the marker is subjected to a complete external vacuum with atmospheric pressure acting under the cap, and the minimum cap removal force recorded in every case significantly exceeds the force developed under that pressure differential. Further it was noted that routine quality assurance vibration tests demonstrate that the cap remains secure when subjected to vibrations representative of those that may be encountered in routine transportation. Based on the foregoing, it is my understanding that it was agreed that the closures (caps) on these markers need not be viewed as "friction-type" closures for purposes of transport as consumer commodities (ID8000) pursuant to the provisions of§ 173.167 of the HMR and Packing Instruction Y963 of the ICAO Technical Instructions, and, consequently, are not subject to the requirement that the closure be further secured by positive means. Your confirmation of this understanding will be most appreciated. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or require additional information in relation to this request. Sincerely, E. A. Altemos#