{"operation":"document","citation":"22-0041","title":"Pilot Chemical Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2022-09-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"22-0041 response to Pilot Chemical Company concerning 172.101, 172.402, 173.2.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0041.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0041.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0041","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/76786/220041.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nSeptember 9, 2022\nMegan O’Connor\nPilot Chemical Company\n9075 Centre Pointe Dr., Suite 400\nWest Chester, OH 45069\nReference No. 22-0041\nDear Ms. O’Connor:\nThis letter is in response to your April 22, 2022, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to classification and selection of\na proper shipping description for a liquid hazardous material. You state that the hazardous\nmaterial meets the criteria for Class 8 (Packing Group (PG) II), Class 3 (PG III), and Division\n6.1 (PG III), which—according to the precedence of hazard table in § 173.2a—would make the\ncorrosivity hazard the primary hazard. However, you state that you are having difficulty finding\nan appropriate hazardous materials description in the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table\n(HMT) for this material, consistent with the precedence of hazard table in § 173.2a. You note\nthe proper shipping description “UN3286, Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s., 3, (6.1, 8),\nPG II,” which reflects all three hazards posed by the material, and inquire whether it is\nappropriate to use this description, or whether using another description, such as “UN2920,\nCorrosive liquids, flammable, n.o.s., 8, (3), PG II,” is more appropriate, even though it does not\nreflect the subsidiary toxicity hazard.\nIt is the shipper’s responsibility to properly classify and describe a material. However, it is the\nopinion of this Office that using UN2920 is more appropriate because it corresponds to\ncorrosivity being the primary hazard of the material. As provided in § 173.2a, the Class 8 liquid\n(PG II) hazard takes precedence over the Class 3 (PG III) and Class 6.1 (PG III) hazards. Note\nthat, while not required, additional information regarding subsidiary hazards posed by materials\n(e.g., oral toxicity) in transport may be included on a shipping paper, in addition to the basic\ndescription. In accordance with § 172.202(a)(3), the subsidiary hazard class or division number\nis not required to be entered when a corresponding subsidiary hazard label is not required.\nSection 172.101(g) instructs that § 172.402 may require that a label other than that specified in\nColumn (6) of the HMT be affixed to a package, in addition to what is specified in Column (6).\nSection 172.402(a)(2) instructs that if not already labeled according to Column (6) of the HMT, a\npackage shall be labeled with subsidiary hazard labels, in accordance with the subsidiary hazard\nlabel table, which requires a label for 6.1 (PG III) toxicity hazard. Thus, depending on the\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nquantity of material shipped, if labeling is required, then the hazardous materials description on\nthe shipping paper should also include the 6.1 hazard.\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\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nCasey\n22-0041\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Formal Letter of Interpretation Request\nDate: Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:44:51 PM\nAttachments: image001.png\nSee below request for interpretation.\nThanks,\nJonathon, HMIC\nFrom: Megan E. O’Connor <meoconnor@pilotchemical.com>\nSent: Friday, April 22, 2022 4:36 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nCc: Megan R. Landers <mrlanders@pilotchemical.com>\nSubject: Formal Letter of Interpretation Request\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do\nnot click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content\nis safe.\nMr. Shane Kelley\nDirector, Standards and Rulemaking Division\nU.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-10)\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE East Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Kelley,\nWe are requesting a formal letter of interpretation for selecting an appropriate UN designation and\nshipping description for a liquid material. We have determined that the material meets the criteria\nof the following classifications:\nClass 8, PG II\nClass 3, PG III\nClass 6.1 (oral), PG III\nAfter reviewing the Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101), the only applicable shipping\ndescription that meets all 3 classes is UN3286, Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s., Packing\nGroup II. However, our concern is that, if using the Precedence of Hazard Table (49 CFR 173.2a),\nClass 8 should be the primary hazard, followed by Class 3, and then Class 6.1. However, if using the\nUN3286 shipping description, the order of hazards is 3, 6.1, 8. Thus under this shipping description,\nClass 8 is actually the tertiary hazard when it should be the primary.\nWe also considered the shipping description UN2920, Corrosive liquids, flammable, n.o.s., 8 (3), PG\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nII, because this shipping description more properly follows the precedence of hazards; however\nsince this shipping description does not convey the toxic properties of the material, we feel this\nmight not be appropriate to use.\nIs it more appropriate to use UN3286, Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s., 3 (6.1) (8), PG II, to\nship the material even though the precedence of hazards under this shipping description deviates\nfrom what is prescribed in 49 CFR 173.2a, or should we use UN2920 to indicate the severity of the\ncorrosive properties?\nThank you very much for your help with this matter.\nSincerely,\nMegan O’Connor\nPilot Chemical Company\n513-996-7927\n9075 Centre Pointe Dr., Suite 400\nWest Chester, OH 45069\nMegan E. O’Connor\nEHS CONTRACTOR\nOffice: 1-513-996-7927\nPilotChemical.com Facebook LinkedIn Twitter","truncated":false,"body_characters":5721}