{"operation":"document","citation":"16-0169","title":"Kalitta Air LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2017-12-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"16-0169 response to Kalitta Air LLC concerning 172.101.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0169.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0169.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0169","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/56796/160169.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nNO V l 6 2 01 7\nMr. Tim Shaw\nKalitta Air, LLC.\n818 Willow Run Airport\nYpsilanti, MI 48198\nRef. No.: 16-0169\nDear Mr. Shaw:\nThis responds to your October 12, 2016 letter requesting clarification on shipping paper\nrequirements and package quantity limitations for Class 1 materials under the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) and the International Civil Aviation\nOrganization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO\nTI). Specifically, you ask about the shipping paper requirements and net quantity limits\napplicable to Class 1 (explosive) materials or articles. Your questions are paraphrased and\nanswered as follows:\nQ 1. For transportation by aircraft, you ask if the net explosive mass (NEM) may be expressed\non a shipping paper as the net weight of an article and not differentiate between the two.\nAl. Under the HMR, for Class 1 materials, the quantity must be the net explosive mass. For a\nClass 1 material that is an article, the net explosive mass may be expressed in terms of the net\nmass of either the article or the explosive materials contained in the article.\nQ2. Does the ICAO TI allow the net explosive mass indicated on a shipping paper to be\nexpressed in terms of either the net mass of the article or the explosive materials contained in the\narticle, or does it differ from the HMR and require an indication the explosive materials\ncontained in the article only?\nA2. The ICAO TI in Part 5;4.1.5.l states that the net quantity of dangerous goods in each\npackage must be indicated by mass or volume as appropriate. For explosive articles of Class 1,\nthe net quantity must be supplemented with the NEM. The definition for net explosive mass in\nPart 1 ;3 .1.1 states:\nNet explosive mass (NEM). The total mass of the explosive substances, without\nthe packagings, casings, etc.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3. You provide an example of a shipment consisting ofUN0186, Rocket motors, l.3C.\nEach rocket motor has a net mass (net quantity) of 381 .03 kg and a net explosive mass of 110.34\nkg. The net quantity limit per package under both the HMR and the ICAO TI is 220 kg for\nUNO 186. You ask which weight is used for determining the quantity limit per package.\nA3. The net mass of the article (rocket motors) is used for determining per package quantity\nlimitations set forth in Column 9 of the§ 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table. As prescribed in\n§ 172.1010)(3), when articles or devices that are specifically listed by name in the HMT, the net\nquantity limitation applies to the entire article or device (less packaging and packaging materials)\nrather than only to its hazardous components. This is consistent with the definition for \"Net\nquantity\" in Part 1 ;3.1.1 and provisions in Part 3, Chapter 2.1.1 \"Column 11\" and \"Column 13\"\nof the ICAO TI. In the scenario described, the rocket motors would not be eligible for air\ntransport unless under the terms of a special permit.\nI hope this answer your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact the Standards\nand Rulemaking Division at (202) 366-8553.\nSincerely,\n~p ~~--\" A- - ~---( · /\nDuane A. Pfund 1/\nI\nInternational Standards Coordinator\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nw ~\n~ 1 ?'2 . 2.P:L\nQ,~lft~p~\n1i - /;1~q\nOctober 12, 2016\nMr. Charles E. Betts\nDirector, Standards and Rulemaking Division\nU.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-10)\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington , DC 20590\nDear Mr. Betts,\nKalitta Air, LLC. , is an all-cargo aircraft operator, headquartered in the United\nStates, certificated under 14CFR 119, and operating under part 121. Kalitta\nair transports Explosive material by air, operating under its own DOT Special\nPermit, as well as other Special Permits.\nWe are confused when discussing the term 'net quantity per package' for\narticles, transported by air.\nThe International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Instructions, list\n'Information required in addition to the dangerous goods description ,' in Part\n5; 4.1.5.1.f:\n\"f) for explosive articles of Class 1, the net quantity indicated for\neach package must be supplemented with the net explosive mass\n(see Part 1 ;3.1.1 for the definition of net explosive mass) contained\nin the package followed by the unit of measurement. The\nabbreviations \"NEQ\"\n,\n\"NEM\" or \"NEW\" may be indicated in\nassociation with the value provided.\"\nWe are comfortable with the net quantity of a substance, i.e. ROX, wetted, or\nROX, desensitized, but have a difficult time when discussing the net weight of\narticles with our customers.\nYour letter of June 8, 2004, to Mr. Bob Van Duzer, of the Sporting Arms and\nAmmunition Manufacturers Institute, (SAAMI), did not resolve the confusion .\nYou referenced 172.202 (a) (5) (i), applicable to situations 'Except for\ntransportation by aircraft'. That section specifically mentioned Explosives, but\nallows the offeror to state the net mass of either the article or the explosive\nmaterials contained in the article. The following section , 172.202 (a) (6), 'For\ntransportation by aircraft,' does not mention explosives, but does require the\ntotal net mass per package, be shown unless a gross mass is indicated in\nColumns (9A) or (9B) of the §172.101 table.\nOur valued customers want to show the Net Explosive Mass (NEM) or NEW,\nas the net weight of an article, and not differentiate between the two.\nPerhaps a more practical example of my question relates to a shipment of\nUN0186, Rocket Motors, 1.3C. UN0186. When properly identified, classified ,\n8 18 Willow R1111 Airport, Ypsilanti, Ml 48 198\nTelepho11 e 734-484-0088\nFax 734-544-7041\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\npacked, marked, labeled and documented, Rocket motors are acceptable for\ntransportation by air, as long as the maximum net quantity in one package of 220\nKg, is not exceeded. In this instance, the shipper shows 3 (appropriate) boxes x\n381.03 Kg each, with a Net Explosive Weight (NEW) of 110.34 Kg each.\nMy questions are these:\n1. For international air transportation, under the ICAO Technical\ninstructions, is the net weight of each package 381.03 kg or 110.34 kg?\n2. Are the requirements applicable to domestic transportation different\nfrom the ICAO requirements, and therefore only require the weight of\nthe explosive material & not the weight of the article?\nPut differently, is the quantity limit of 220 Kg, in the 49CFR part 172.101 table,\napplicable to the Net Weight of the Explosive, (381.03 kg) or the Net Explosive\nWeight (NEW) (110.34 Kg)?\nI consider the Net Weight of Explosive as the finished article, exclusive of\npackaging, while the Net explosive Weight is the weight of (only) the explosive\nmaterial, itself.\nThe difference is substantial. The difference often dictates whether a Special\nPermit is required to transport this cargo, or whether this is a routine movement\nof acceptable Class 1 material.\nYour interpretation would be appreciated.\nTim Shaw\nManager of Security\n818 Willow Run Airport, Ypsilallfi, Ml 48198\nTelephone 734-484-0088\nFax 734-544-7041","truncated":false,"body_characters":7147}