{"operation":"document","citation":"17-0064","title":"Regulatory Resources, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2018-03-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"17-0064 response to Regulatory Resources, Inc. concerning 173.24, 177.848.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-17-0064.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-17-0064.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-17-0064","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/57391/170064.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE\nWashington. DC 20590\nFEB 1 4 2018\nWade Winters\nPresident\nRegulatory Resources, Inc.\n379 Aragon Avenue\nLos Alamos, NM 87547\nReference No. 17-0064\nDear Mr. Winters:\nThis letter is in response to your June 6, 2017, email and subsequent phone conversations\nrequesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180)\napplicable to highway segregation requirements. Specifically, you provide scenarios in which\ndifferent combinations of Class 3 and Division 5.1 materials are being offered for highway\ntransportation in quantities that require labels.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ 1. You ask whether packages of two different hazardous materials (i.e., Class 3 and\nDivision 5.1) may be loaded together without regard to the segregation requirements in\n§ 177 .848 if these materials do not react dangerously with each other.\nAl. The answer is no. Stability of the materials when commingled does not allow a shipper\nto disregard the segregation requirements in§ 177.848. The segregation requirements in\n§ 177.848 must be followed for all applicable hazards stored, loaded, or transported with\nother packages of hazardous materials. The letter \"O\" appears in the entry on the\nSegregation Table for Class 3 and Division 5.1 materials, which indicates that these\nmaterials must be separated to prevent commingling if packages were to leak.\nQ2. You ask whether \"mixed contents\" packages prepared in accordance with§ 173.24a(c),\ncontaining inner receptacles of Class 3 and Division 5 .1 materials, may be loaded\ntogether without regard to the segregation requirements in§ 177.848 if these materials do\nnot react dangerously with each other.\nA2. The answer is no. Packages containing \"mixed contents\" cannot violate the segregation\nrequirements established for the mode of transportation used. Therefore, Class 3 and\nDivision 5.1 materials cannot be placed in the same outer package under the mixed\ncontents requirements in§ 173.24a(c), because§ 177.848 requires separation for these\nmaterials.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3. AJ. Q4. A4. You ask whether a Class 3 material with a subsidiary hazard of Division 5.1 may be\npackaged with other Class 3 materials in a \"mixed contents\" package if these materials do\nnot react dangerously with each other.\nThe answer is yes. Section 177.848(e)(6) waives the segregation requirements between\nthe subsidiary \"secondary\" hazard and other materials in the same primary hazard class,\nprovided these materials do not react dangerously with each other. A package containing\na primary Class 3 material with a subsidiary hazard of Division 5 .1 could be transported\nwith other primary Class 3 materials, provided they were not capable of reacting\ndangerously.\nYou ask whether a Class 3 material with a subsidiary hazard of Division 5.1 may be\npackaged with other Division 5 .1 materials in a \"mixed contents\" package if these\nmaterials do not react dangerously with each other.\nThe answer is no. As mentioned in Answer AJ, § 177.848(e)(6) waives the segregation\nrequirements between the subsidiary \"secondary\" hazard and other materials in the same\nprimary hazard class, provided these materials do not react dangerously with each other.\nHowever, the inner receptacles with primary hazard Division 5.1 materials are still\nsubject to the separation requirements§ 177.848 when transported with primary hazard\nClass 3 materials.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\n~~~~~\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nSubject: ' < j\n\\ 1 - OJl.PL/\nLehman, Victoria (PHMSA)\nMonday, June 19, 2017 1:55 PM\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nFW: Follow up Q/A to 177.848 clarification request\nHi Shante -\nAs discussed, please log this as a new letter. Mr. Winter's contact information is under letter 17-0049.\nThanks,\nVictoria\nrom: Wade Winters [mailto:wade@regulatoryresources.net]\nSent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 9:19 PM\nTo: Lehman, Victoria (PHMSA) <victoria.lehman@dot.gov>\nSubject: RE: Follow up Qj A to 177 .848 clarification request\n()\nHi,\nThank you for the email. I can only think of two. Can two different hazardous materials of classes/divisions that are not\n~llowed to be transported _!QWber,.Qr re~ire separation/segregatior:i (i.e., a Class 3 and Division 5- .1),~!Qa_Qeii -\n-\nwithout regard to separation/segregation if the materials are not capable of reacting aangerou -sly with each other and\nCaUSTncom ustion or dangerous evolution of heat, evolution of flammable, poisonous, or asphyxiant gases, or\nformation of corrosive or unstable materials?___\n- --- ---- -\n-----\n-\nDoes the answer for the _9.!Jestion above apply equally to mixed contents under 1]3.24a(cl ... i.e., can these two\nmaterials be placed in the same packaging if they are not capable of reacting dangerously with each other (assuming all\nother requirements of 173.24a(c) are met)?\nI really appreciate your time with my request.\nI'm out of the office until next Monday but will be able to get to my emails if you have any more questions for me.\nThank you so very much,\nWade\nFrom: Lehman, Victoria (PHMSA) [mailto:victoria .lehman@dot.gov]\nSent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 11:55 AM\nTo: wade@regulatoryresources.net\nSubject: RE: Follow up Qj A to 177 .848 clarification request\nHi Wade,\nIn our phone call, we briefly discussed the highway segregation requirements for packages required to bear a subsidiary\nlabel in 49 CFR 177.848(e)(6).\n§177.848 Segregation of hazardous materials ... (e) Instructions for using the segregation table for hazardous materials\nare as follows ... (6) When the §172.101 table or §172.402 of this subchapter requires a package to bear a subsidiary\nhazard label, segregation appropriate to the subsidiary hazard must be applied when that segregation is more restrictive\nthan that required by the primary hazard. However, hazardous materials of the same class may be stowed together\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nwithout regard to segregation required for any secondary hazard if the materials are not capable of reacting dangerously\nwith each other and causing combustion or dangerous evolution of heat, evolution of flammable, poisonous, or\nasphyxiant gases, or formation of corrosive or unstable materials.\nDid you have a follow-up question on this requirement that you wanted addressed in a formal letter of interpretation?\nRespectfully,\nVictoria Lehman\nTransportation Specialist- Regulatory Review & Reinvention (PHH-12)\nU.S. Department ofTransportation (U.S. DOT)\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS)\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n(202) 366-9128 I victoria.lehman@dot.gov I http://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat I Follow PHMSA on Twitter\nFrom: Wade Winters [mailto:wade@regulatoryresources.net]\nSent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 12:13 PM\nTo: Lehman, Victoria (PHMSA) <victoria.lehman@dot.gov>\nSubject: Follow up Q/A to 177.848 clarification request\nHi Victoria,\nI've posed the questions you asked with regard to the letter seeking clarification on 177.848. The replies are in red. A\nfollow-up question to you concludes the Q&A.\nThank you so much for your desire to help. Please call or email if you have any further questions.\nAll the best always,\nWade\nThe questions from DOT concerns how the item is classed.\n1. 2. 3. Is there only one UN number assigned to the item, and hence, the package containing the item (or is it shipped\nunder 2 or more UN numbers and proper shipping names)?\nThere will only be 1 UN number assigned.\nHow is the package to be labeled - what is the primary hazard class?\nThe label will be based upon the HD assigned by the DOT or IHC authority. In this case, an HD 1.48 would not be\nuncommon.\nIs the package required to display both a primary and subsidiary hazard label(s) or is only one DOT hazard label\nrequired?\nThis is a shipper responsibility. This package will not routinely require anything other than a primary hazard label.\nVictoria, given the reply to question 3, what would be separation/segregation requirement if a package is determined to\nrequire display of both a Division 1.48 label and Division 2.2 label?\nRegulatory Resources, Inc.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nYour Training and Compliance Professionals\n505-393-0111\nwww.reghead.net\nThis e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidentia l and may contain proprietary information of Regulatory Resources, Inc. This e-mail and any\nattachment(s) are intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed; they may contain legally privileged and protected matter. Any\nreview, retransmission, dissemination or other use whatsoever by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If\nyou received this in error, please delete the original transmission, destroy all electronic and hard copies, and notify the sender by return e-mail.\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":9087}