{"operation":"document","citation":"22-0120","title":"Hazmat Safety Consulting, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2022-11-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"22-0120 response to Hazmat Safety Consulting, LLC concerning 173.29.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0120.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0120.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0120","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/76956/220120.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nNovember 7, 2022\nRobert Richard\nPresident\nHazmat Safety Consulting, LLC\n10036 Lake Occoquan Drive\nManassas, VA 20111\nReference No. 22-0120\nDear Mr. Richard:\nThis letter is in response to your October 24, 2022, letter requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to special permit\nmarkings on packages. Specifically, you seek clarification on the requirements in § 173.29(b)\nwhich states that an empty packaging is not subject to any other requirements of the HMR\nprovided certain conditions are met, including paragraph (b)(1), which states that any hazardous\nmaterial shipping name and identification number markings, any hazard warning labels or\nplacards, and any other markings indicating that the material is hazardous (e.g., RQ,\nINHALATION HAZARD) must be removed, obliterated, or securely covered in transportation.\nYou state that one of your clients ships empty multiple-element gas containers (MEGCs) that\nhave previously contained hazardous material for retesting and refurbishment, and while they\ncover all hazardous material shipping names, identification numbers, and placarding; some of the\nMEGCs also have visible special permit (SP) markings which indicate that the tubes on the\nMEGC are requalified every 10 years vs. 5 years or that MEGCs are permitted to be retested via\nthe ultrasonic test method. You ask whether the SP markings on the tubes of the MEGC need to\nbe securely covered to satisfy the requirements of § 173.29(b)(1)\nThe answer is no. The mere presence of the SP marking on the packaging would not indicate\nthat a hazardous material is present at a particular point in time. It is, rather, an indication that\nthe package meets the minimum SP conditions represented by the marking.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nThis is similar to a package specification marking, which may remain visible in transportation\nprovided the packaging meets the marked specification - whether containing a hazardous\nmaterial or not.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nShane C. Kelley\nDirector\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n22-0120\nLarson\nOctober 24, 2022\nShane Kelly\nDirector Standards and Rulemaking Division\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nAttn: Standards and Rulemaking Division, PHH-10\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.\nEast Building, Floor 2\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nSubject: Request for Interpretation; Special Permit Markings on Empty Packages\nDear Mr. Kelley,\nI am writing to confirm my understanding of the requirements for removing, obliterating, or securely coverings\nspecial permit markings (e.g., DOT-SP XXXXX) in relation to § 173.29(b)(1). One of our clients ships empty\nMEGCs, that have previously contained hazardous material for retesting and refurbishment. The process\nincludes ensuring that the MEGCs have all hazardous material shipping names, identification numbers, and\nplacarding securely covered to meet compliance with § 173.29(b)(1). Some of the MEGCs at times will also\nhave DOT-SPs markings as required by various special permits when in commerce. Some of the special permit\nmarkings are for example only to indicate that tubes are requalified every 10 years vs. 5 years or that MEGCs\nare permitted to be retested via the ultrasonic method and have no other hazardous material relevance.\nIn this regard (and even if there is an association of the special permit to a specific hazardous material), if a\nDOT-SP number is on a package, is that an indication that a hazardous material is contained in the package\n(even if it is otherwise known to be empty) and would the special permit marking need to be covered in order to\nbe in compliance with § 173.29(b)(1)?\nIn discussion with your staff, we received an initial response to our question:\n“An SP marking is similar to a specification marking in that if appearing, any terms of the SP that relate to the\npackage would need to be met. The mere presence of the SP marking would not indicate that a hazmat is\ncontained in the package at a particular point in time. It is, rather, an indication that the package meets the\nminimum SP conditions represented by the marking. This is, again, similar to how we would view a\nspecification marking on a package.”\nWe agree with the initial response we received but are requesting a letter of interpretation to confirm the initial\nresponse and our understanding that the special permit markings would not need to be covered on empty\npackages.\nRespectfully,\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nRobert Richard\nPresident Hazmat Safety Consulting, LLC\n10036 Lake Occoquan Drive\nManassas, VA 20111","truncated":false,"body_characters":4863}