{"operation":"document","citation":"14-0016","title":"URS Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2014-03-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"14-0016 response to URS Corporation concerning 172.800.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0016","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2014/140016.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 0 4 2014\nMr. Andrew N. Romach\nURS Corportation\n1600 Perimeter Drive\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nRefNo.: 14-0016\nDear Mr. Romach:\nThis is a response to your January 1 7, 2014 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) with regard to the applicability of\nsecurity plans in§ 172.800. Specifically, you ask whether subsidiary hazards should be\nconsidered when determining the applicability of the security plan requirements for shippers\nand carriers. In your email, you describe a shipment of a large bulk quantity of \"UN2920,\nCorrosive liquid, flammable, n.o.s.,\" with a primary hazard of Class 8, packing group II and a\nsubsidiary hazard of Class 3, packing group III.\nIn accordance with§ 172.800(b), each person who offers for transportation or transports a\nhazardous material in a quantity indicated in paragraphs (b )(1) through (b)( 16) must develop\nand adhere to a security plan. In § 172.800(b ), a \"large bulk quantity\" refers to a quantity\ngreater than 3,000 kg (6,614 pounds) for solids or 3,000 liters (792 gallons) for liquids and\ngases in a single packaging.\nIn regards to a large bulk quantity of\"UN2920, Corrosive liquid, flammable, n.o.s., 8, 3, II,\"\nwith a primary hazard of Class 8, packing group II and a subsidiary hazard of Class 3, packing\ngroup III, a security plan would not be required, as there are no corresponding applicability in\n§ 172.800(b) for this material. Unless specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the\napplicability for security plans refers to the primary hazard of a material or the definition of a\nhazard class.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact this office.\nSincerely,\nRobert Benedict\nChief, Standards Development\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nJanuary 17,2014\nSu~hak\n~ 112. sao (b)(~J\n~ec.u.n'tj 'Plans.\nlti--b()/(o\nMr. Charles Betts, Division Director\nStandards and Rulemaking (PHH-10)\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 request a Department of Transportation (DOT) interpretation concerning the\napplicability of a DOT Security Plan in 49 CFR 172.800(b )( 6).\nQuestion: Would shipping a large bulk quantity of UN2920, Corrosive liquid, flammable, n.o.s.\nwith a primary corrosive hazard (8, II) and subsidiary flammable hazard (3, III), which is\nassigned overall classification of 8(3), II when using the precedence of hazard table in 49 CFR\n173.2a(b), be required to have a DOT Security Plan? The :flashpoint of this material is 120°F.\nEven though the overall packing group of the hazardous material is PGII due to the Class 8\nhazard, the Class 3 hazard is actually PGIII.\nBased on verbal guidance provided by Neil Suchak in DOT Standards Development, he stated\nthat the applicability of the Security Plan is based on the Primary Hazard Class of the hazardous\nmaterial and only considers the Subsidiary Risk for those materials in 49 CFR 172.800(b )( 4) and\n(b)(14).\nPlease confirm that in determining DOT Security Plan applicability for the 8(3), II scenario\ndescribed above, a DOT Security Plan would not be required.\nI would appreciate your assistance with this question.\nSincerely,\nAndrew N. Romach\nRegulatory Compliance Manager\nURS Corporation\nURS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive Morrisville, NC 27560\nTel: 919.461.1220\nFax: 919.461.1371\nandy.romach@urs.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":3664}