{"operation":"document","citation":"20-0082","title":"Lawrence Bierlein — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2021-02-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"20-0082 concerning 171.8, 173.150.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0082.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0082.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0082","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/74741/200082.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nFebruary 10, 2021\nLawrence Bierlein\n4701 Willard Avenue, #1204\nChevy Chase, MD 20815\nReference No. 20-0082\nDear Mr. Bierlein:\nThis letter is in response to your October 13, 2020, email and subsequent discussions with my\nstaff requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n171-180) applicable to the aqueous solution of alcohol exception in § 173.150(e). On behalf of\nyour client, you ask whether a personal care gel composed of 64% water, 20% isopropyl\nalcohol, 1.2% ammonia solution, and several other non-hazardous components is eligible to be\ntransported in accordance with the exception for aqueous solutions of alcohol in § 173.150(e).\nYou state your understanding that the gel in question is not subject to the HMR in accordance\nwith § 173.150(e).\nThe answer is yes. If the ammonia solution component, in the concentration present in the gel,\ndoes not meet the definition of “hazardous material” in § 171.8, then the presence of the\nammonia solution component does not preclude the gel from eligibility for the exception in\n§ 173.150(e).\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nDirk Der Kinderen\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\nCC: Mr. Rob Somers\n\n<<>>\n\nPatrick\n20-0082\nFrom: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\nTo: Cc: Subject: Date: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA); Hillman, Kenetha CTR (PHMSA)\nFoster, Glenn (PHMSA); DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA); Nickels, Matthew (PHMSA); Patrick, Eamonn (PHMSA)\nFW: Request for a formal interpretation of the 24% alcohol exception\nTuesday, October 13, 2020 4:39:51 PM\nAttachments: Perrigo request for interpretation.docx\nPerrigo request for interpretation.docx\nTeam\nPlease log for response.\nI know we have a system for assignment but based on the fact Eamonn has a running start, would\nlike to request he be our lead on this response. I would also like to be in the review chain as we\nprogress.\nThanks\nFrom: Lawrence Bierlein \nSent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:07 PM\nTo: Schoonover, William (PHMSA) \nCc: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA) ; Rob Somers ;\n'Alan Roberts' \nSubject: Request for a formal interpretation of the 24% alcohol exception\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or\nopen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nAttached please find my request for a fresh review of the regulations in 49 CFR 173.150 and the issuance\nof a formal interpretation in support of my client's use of the exception.\nThis exception came into effect in 1975. I was the petitioner for it and Al Roberts managed the program\nthat issued it. I recently advised him of the need for an updated interpretation, and he has noted he\nagrees with my position. He also asked if there was anyone he could call at DOT to discuss it.\nI raised this subject initially with Shane Kelley, so he is copied on this filing.\nPlease do not hesitate to contact me on any aspect of my request. Thank you.\nLarry Bierlein\n(202) 631-3222","truncated":false,"body_characters":3323}