{"operation":"document","citation":"14-0058","title":"Transportation Systems Solutions — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2014-11-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"14-0058 response to Transportation Systems Solutions concerning 171.2, 173.120, 173.150, 173.22.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0058.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0058.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0058","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2014/140058.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nf Transportatio\nS. Departmen\nWashington DC 20590\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nSafety Administration\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nNOV 2 4 2014\nMr. Peter Olsen\nTransportation Systems Solutions\n318 Hampshire Lane\nCrystal Lake, IL 60014\nRef. No. 14-0058\nDear Mr. Olsen:\nThis responds to your March 21, 2014 request for clarification on combustible liquid material under\nthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask about\nclassification of material to a more stringent classification and classification of a non-hazardous\nmaterial as hazardous.\nIn your letter, you state you intend to reclassify and rename a combustible liquid (NA1993,\nCombustible liquid, PG III) as a flammable liquid (UN1993, Flammable liquid, PG III) material. It\nis your understanding that although § 173.150 authorizes an exception in order to reclassify a\nflammable liquid with a flashpoint at or above 100°F to a combustible, describing the material as\nflammable does not diminish the intent of the HMR and could provide a higher level of packaging\nprotection and a higher level of emergency response in the event of an incident. In addition, you\nwant to classify your product as combustible regardless of whether it meets the defining criteria of a\nhazardous material. You note your line of product sometimes meets the combustible liquid defining\ncriteria and at other times does not. Your questions are paraphrased and answered below.\nQ1. May I classify a combustible liquid as a flammable liquid?\nA1. Section 173.150 provides an exception to reclass a flammable liquid to a combustible\nliquid under certain conditions. However, it is not required under the HMR that you use the\nexception. If the flash point of your material is greater than 140°F but less than 200°F and\ndoes not meet the definition of any other hazard class, it must be classed as a combustible for\ndomestic transportation. If the flash point is greater than or equal to 100°F but less than\n140°F and does not meet the definition of any other hazard class, it may be reclassed as a\ncombustible. The materials you refer to should be classed and described according to\ndefining criteria in § 173.120 and the shipper's knowledge of the material. Therefore, if the\nmaterial meets the definition of a combustible liquid in § 173.120, then it should be classed\nand described as such, e.g., NA 1993, Combustible liquid, PG III.\nQ2. For ease of shipment, may I classify a product that fluctuates above or below a\nflashpoint of 200°F as combustible regardless of the flashpoint?\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA2. A material with a flash point greater than or equal to 200°F that does not meet the\ndefinition of any other hazard class, may not be shipped as a hazardous material. In\naccordance with § 171.2(k), no person may, by marking or otherwise, represent that a\nhazardous material is present in a package, container, motor vehicle, rail car, aircraft, or\nvessel if the hazardous material is not present. Therefore, you may not ship all batches of\nyou product as combustible if the properties of the batches vary such that the product\nfluctuates between hazardous and non-hazardous material. It is the shipper's responsibility\nto properly class and describe a material as hazardous for transportation in commerce in\naccordance with § 173.22.\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact this office at 202-\n366-8553.\nActing Chief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nStevens Boothe\n3173,150 (f)\nExceptions\n14-0058\nTransportation Systems Solutions\n318 Hampshire Lane\nCrystal Lake\nIllinois, 60014\n815-479-0897\nTo whom it may concern,\nTransportation Systems Solutions (TSS) respectfully requests an interpretation\nas to if a NA1993 combustible liquid packing group ill may be re-classified and\nre-named as a UN 1993 flammable liquid packing group Ill. TSS respectfully\nsuggests that given 173.150(f) allows for a flammable liquid with a flashpoint\nabove 100°F to be reclassified as combustible liquid, and in the event of being\ntransported in non-bulk packaging the regulations do not apply, (l.e. more\nstringent to less stringent), that reclassifying a combustible liquid as flammable\n(i.e. less stringent to more stringent) would not diminish the intent of the\nregulations and could provide for a higher level of packaging protection and a\nheightened level of emergency response in the event of an incident.\nTSS also requests an interpretation as to if a liquid with a flashpoint above 200°F\nmay be classified as a combustible liquid. Given the scenario that if the\nconsistency of a product meant that the flashpoint of a product fluctuated above\nor below 200°F making one batch combustible and possibly another batch non-\nregulated would it be permissible to classify the non-regulated batch as a\ncombustible liquid such that all batches would be shipped as a combustible\nliquid. Classifying the product as a combustible would eliminate any confusion\nand potential for non-compliant situations such as failing to placard a bulk\ncontainer or failing to provide a bill of lading.\nI thank you for your time and look forward to your response\nYours sincerely,\nPeter Olsen\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nSent:\nFrom:\nINFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSubject:\nTo:\nFriday, March 21, 2014 4:27 PM\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nAttachments:\nPHMSA interpretation request. doc\nFW: Letter of interpretation\nHi Carolyn,\nThis caller requested we submit this e-mail as a formal letter of interpretation. This version has the attachment.\nThanks,\nVictoria\nFrom: Peter Olsen [mailto:peterolsen@att.net]\nSent: Friday, March 21, 2014 3:20 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSubject: Letter of interpretation\nPlease find attached my letter requesting an interpretation for re-classifying and re-naming a\ncombustible liquid as a flammable liquid.\nKind regards\nPeter Olsen","truncated":false,"body_characters":5887}