{"operation":"document","citation":"22-0071","title":"W.E. Train Consulting — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2023-01-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"22-0071 response to W.E. Train Consulting concerning 173.22.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0071.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0071.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0071","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/77226/220071.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nJanuary 24, 2023\nMr. Gene Sanders\nW.E. Train Consulting\n8635 W. Hillsborough Ave.\n#112\nTampa, FL 33615\nReference No. 22-0071\nDear Mr. Sanders:\nThis letter is in response to your July 20, 2022, letter, requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the classification of soybean\nmeal. In your letter, you state that 40 samples of soybean meal were taken from a variety of\ndifferent soybean meal suppliers around the country and tested at an independent company in\naccordance with the United Nations Manual of Tests and Criteria for Division 4.2\n(Spontaneously Combustible Material) self-heating material. You state that the results of the\ntests indicated that the soybean meal had oil levels ranging from 0.42–2.86%, moisture levels\nranging from 10.79–13.07%, and that all 40 samples were determined to not meet the self-\nheating material criteria for Division 4.2. You ask whether future shipments of soybean meal—\ncreated through the exact same processes and having identical oil and moisture ranges—may be\nclassified as “NOT self-heating” without additional self-heating testing.\nAs specified in § 173.22 of the HMR, it is the shipper’s responsibility to properly class a\nhazardous material. Such determinations are not required to be verified by this Office.\nFurthermore, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration does not certify a\nshipper’s determination of whether a material is a hazardous material. However, based on the\ninformation you included in your letter, it is the opinion of this Office that—provided the\nrequired tests were performed on the material in the form to be transported and returned negative\nresults—the tested materials would not be considered Division 4.2 self-heating material.\n\n<<>>\n\nPlease note that exclusion from a Division 4.2 self-heating material classification does not\nnecessarily indicate the material is not a hazardous material that is subject to the HMR. In\naddition, if future shipments of your materials do not meet the definition of a hazardous material\nas defined by the HMR, they may be transported as non-hazardous materials—although we stress\nthat it continues to be the offeror’s responsibility to properly class its material.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nWolcott\n22-0071\nFrom: Nickels, Matthew (PHMSA)\nTo: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Request for Letter of Clarification/Interpretation sent via snail mail status.\nDate: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 1:25:21 PM\nAttachments: WE Train Request for PHMSA letter of clarification 14jun2022.pdf\nImportance: High\nHey Alice and Kenetha, please process the attached PDF as a new interp request. (I did a review of\nFileMaker, and did not see it already entered in the system – he sent it in by snail mail back in mid-\nJune, but I have no idea if it ever made it to us to process.)\nThanks!\nFrom: Gene Sanders of W.E. Train Consulting \nSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 12:59 PM\nTo: Nickels, Matthew (PHMSA) \nCc: William Eugene Sanders III \nSubject: Fwd: Request for Letter of Clarification/Interpretation sent via snail mail status.\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.\nHi Matt,\nHere’s an electronic copy of what was sent via snail mail, in case it helps you find the status more\nquickly. Thank you.\nSincerely,\nGene Sanders\nManager, W.E. Train Consulting\nBegin forwarded message:\nFrom: \"Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\" \nSubject: RE: Request for Letter of Clarification/Interpretation sent via snail mail\nstatus.\nDate: July 20, 2022 at 12:55:36 PM EDT\nTo: \"'Gene Sanders of W.E. Train Consulting'\" \nCc: William Eugene Sanders III , \"Nickels, Matthew (PHMSA)\"\n\nHi Gene –\n\n<<>>\n\nSorry for the delay in responding, I was out of the Office when your first email came in,\nand\nI have included Matt Nickels, who can verify if we have received the request and if so,\nwhether it has been assigned to staff. If you have not received an acknowledgement\nletter, I suspect we do not have it in process, but Matt can confirm and we can quickly\nget it into production if it has not been received.\nShane\nFrom: Gene Sanders of W.E. Train Consulting \nSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 12:51 PM\nTo: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA) \nCc: William Eugene Sanders III \nSubject: Fwd: Request for Letter of Clarification/Interpretation sent via snail mail\nstatus.\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of\nTransportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open attachments unless you\nrecognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nHi Shane,\nI hope things are going well for you. I hate to bother you, but don’t know a much\nbetter way to check the status than contacting you directly. Thanks.\nCheers,\nGene Sanders\nManager, W.E. Train Consulting\nBegin forwarded message:\nFrom: \"Gene Sanders of W.E. Train Consulting\"\n\nSubject: Request for Letter of Clarification/Interpretation\nsent via snail mail status.\nDate: June 30, 2022 at 5:01:31 PM EDT\nTo: \"Shane C. Kelley\" \nCc: William Eugene Sanders III \nShane,\nOn June 14th I sent, addressed to you, a snail mail requesting an\ninterpretation/clarification. I don’t know how to verify that it was\nreceived and is being worked upon. Is there a place on the PHMSA\n\n<<>>\n\nwebsite for me to do that, or is a form letter sent back via snail mail,\nor what? I know U are very busy, so I’m happy to do any\nlegwork/on-line searching myself. Thank you.\nSincerely,\nGene Sanders\nManager, W.E. Train Consulting\nGene@WEtrainConsulting.com\n8635 W. Hillsborough Ave. #112\nTampa, FL 33615 USA\nwww.WEtrainConsulting.com\nalternate e-mail: WEtrain@att.net\nmobile phone: +1 (813) 855-3855\npersonal cell: +1 (412) 779-5151\n\n<<>>\n\nW.E. Train Consulting\n8635 W. Hillsborough Ave. #112\nTampa, FL 33634 USA\nPhone: +1 (813) 855-3855 Fax: +1 (630) 982-3216\nE-Mail: info@WEtrainConsulting.com Web:\nwww.WEtrainConsulting.com\n14 June 2022\nShane C. Kelley, Director of Standards and Rulemaking\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.\nWashington, DC 20590 USA\nDear Mr. Kelley,\nSoybean meal (SBM) is a valuable commodity around the world, mostly as a high protein feed for livestock. According to a recent\nLMC International study, jointly commissioned by the United Soybean Board (USB) and National Oilseed Processors Association\n(NOPA), the crushing industry generates approximately $8.3 billion in revenue annually. The total value of U.S. SBM exports is\napproximately $4.4 billion.\nSBM is made by crushing the whole soybeans and then using a solvent to extract the soybean oil, which is a valuable commodity\non its own. Thus, those processing are economically incentivized to remove as much oil as possible. Similarly, because freight\ncharges are by weight, there is an economic incentive to remove as much moisture as is reasonably possible. Additionally, both\neconomic cost and US environmental regulations dictate that the solvent used in the oil extraction be recovered for reuse. So,\ncommercial SBM in the US is low oil, low moisture, and substantially free from solvent.\nThe residue from extracting oil from seeds is generically referred to as Seedcake, and so SBM is a type of seedcake. Seedcake is\na proper shipping name in the 49CFR Hazardous Materials Table, with two different identification numbers, and a hazard class of\n4.2, as self-heating material. But, because different kinds of seedcake may have very different physical properties and\ncompositions, not all seedcake is self-heating. A representative selection (40 different samples) of SBM from a variety of\ndifferent SBM suppliers around the USA was collected and then analyzed and tested at an independent company. Characteristics\nmeasured include oil and moisture, and the testing was for self-heating, using the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria methodology\nas prescribed by 49CFR 173.124(b)(2). Oil levels ranged from 0.42 – 2.86 %, moisture from 10.79 – 13.07 %. Every single self-\nheating test was negative.\nWill you please confirm that future shipments of SBM created through the exact same processes, with oil levels 0.42-2.86%, and\nmoisture levels 10.79-13.07%, are properly classified as “NOT self-heating” without the need for additional self-heating testing?\nThank you.\nSincerely,\nWm. Eugene (Gene) Sanders III, Manager","truncated":false,"body_characters":8950}