# Pilot Chemical Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **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:** Not available - **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:** <<>> 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration September 9, 2022 Megan O’Connor Pilot Chemical Company 9075 Centre Pointe Dr., Suite 400 West Chester, OH 45069 Reference No. 22-0041 Dear Ms. O’Connor: This letter is in response to your April 22, 2022, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to classification and selection of a proper shipping description for a liquid hazardous material. You state that the hazardous material meets the criteria for Class 8 (Packing Group (PG) II), Class 3 (PG III), and Division 6.1 (PG III), which—according to the precedence of hazard table in § 173.2a—would make the corrosivity hazard the primary hazard. However, you state that you are having difficulty finding an appropriate hazardous materials description in the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) for this material, consistent with the precedence of hazard table in § 173.2a. You note the proper shipping description “UN3286, Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s., 3, (6.1, 8), PG II,” which reflects all three hazards posed by the material, and inquire whether it is appropriate to use this description, or whether using another description, such as “UN2920, Corrosive liquids, flammable, n.o.s., 8, (3), PG II,” is more appropriate, even though it does not reflect the subsidiary toxicity hazard. It is the shipper’s responsibility to properly classify and describe a material. However, it is the opinion of this Office that using UN2920 is more appropriate because it corresponds to corrosivity being the primary hazard of the material. As provided in § 173.2a, the Class 8 liquid (PG II) hazard takes precedence over the Class 3 (PG III) and Class 6.1 (PG III) hazards. Note that, while not required, additional information regarding subsidiary hazards posed by materials (e.g., oral toxicity) in transport may be included on a shipping paper, in addition to the basic description. In accordance with § 172.202(a)(3), the subsidiary hazard class or division number is not required to be entered when a corresponding subsidiary hazard label is not required. Section 172.101(g) instructs that § 172.402 may require that a label other than that specified in Column (6) of the HMT be affixed to a package, in addition to what is specified in Column (6). Section 172.402(a)(2) instructs that if not already labeled according to Column (6) of the HMT, a package shall be labeled with subsidiary hazard labels, in accordance with the subsidiary hazard label table, which requires a label for 6.1 (PG III) toxicity hazard. Thus, depending on the <<>> quantity of material shipped, if labeling is required, then the hazardous materials description on the shipping paper should also include the 6.1 hazard. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Dirk Der Kinderen Chief, Standards Development Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division <<>> Casey 22-0041 From: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) To: Hazmat Interps Subject: FW: Formal Letter of Interpretation Request Date: Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:44:51 PM Attachments: image001.png See below request for interpretation. Thanks, Jonathon, HMIC From: Megan E. O’Connor Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 4:36 PM To: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Cc: Megan R. Landers Subject: Formal Letter of Interpretation Request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Shane Kelley Director, Standards and Rulemaking Division U.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-10) 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE East Building, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Kelley, We are requesting a formal letter of interpretation for selecting an appropriate UN designation and shipping description for a liquid material. We have determined that the material meets the criteria of the following classifications: Class 8, PG II Class 3, PG III Class 6.1 (oral), PG III After reviewing the Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101), the only applicable shipping description that meets all 3 classes is UN3286, Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s., Packing Group II. However, our concern is that, if using the Precedence of Hazard Table (49 CFR 173.2a), Class 8 should be the primary hazard, followed by Class 3, and then Class 6.1. However, if using the UN3286 shipping description, the order of hazards is 3, 6.1, 8. Thus under this shipping description, Class 8 is actually the tertiary hazard when it should be the primary. We also considered the shipping description UN2920, Corrosive liquids, flammable, n.o.s., 8 (3), PG <<>> II, because this shipping description more properly follows the precedence of hazards; however since this shipping description does not convey the toxic properties of the material, we feel this might not be appropriate to use. Is it more appropriate to use UN3286, Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s., 3 (6.1) (8), PG II, to ship the material even though the precedence of hazards under this shipping description deviates from what is prescribed in 49 CFR 173.2a, or should we use UN2920 to indicate the severity of the corrosive properties? Thank you very much for your help with this matter. Sincerely, Megan O’Connor Pilot Chemical Company 513-996-7927 9075 Centre Pointe Dr., Suite 400 West Chester, OH 45069 Megan E. O’Connor EHS CONTRACTOR Office: 1-513-996-7927 PilotChemical.com Facebook LinkedIn Twitter - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 5721