{"operation":"document","citation":"22-0136","title":"UL Solutions — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2024-09-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"22-0136 response to UL Solutions concerning 171.4, 171.8, 172.101, 173.150.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0136.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0136.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0136","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2024-09/220136.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nSeptember 12, 2024\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. Kevin Skerrett\nUL Solutions\n77 Clearbrook Drive\nRochester, NY 14609\nReference No. 22-0136\nDear Mr. Skerrett:\nThis letter is in response to your October 25, 2022, email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the transportation\nof aqueous solutions of alcohol.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. You ask whether the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nallows offerors to consider the concentration of “ammonia” or “ammonium hydroxide” in\nan aqueous solution of alcohol when determining whether the exceptions in § 173.150(e)\napply, as opposed to only considering the hazard class of the added ingredient.\nA1. The answer is yes. If the ammonia component—in the concentration present in the\naqueous solutions of alcohol—does not meet the definition of a “hazardous material” in\n§ 171.8 and does not cause the mixture to meet the definition of an additional hazard\nclass, then the presence of the ammonia component does not preclude the mixture from\neligibility for the exception in § 173.150(e).\nQ2. You note that “UN2672, Ammonia solution, 8” is listed in § 172.101 Hazardous\nMaterials Table (HMT) with a concentration of greater than 10% but no more than 35%\nammonia. You ask whether it is correct to assume that an “ammonia solution” with a\nconcentration of less than 10% ammonia does not meet the definition of a “hazardous\nmaterial” as specified in § 171.8 when considering the applicability of the § 173.150(e)\nexception.\nA2. The answer is no. The concentration of the ammonia alone does not factor into the\nconsideration for the applicability of the exceptions in § 173.150(e). If an aqueous\nsolution of alcohol containing 1.2% ammonia—for example—was enough for the\nmixture to meet the definition of an additional hazard class, the mixture would no longer\nbe permitted to utilize the exceptions in § 173.150(e). Similarly, if the concentration of\nammonia was within the 10% to 35% range for “UN2672, Ammonia solution, 8”, but the\nmixture still did not meet the definition of Class 8 or any additional hazard class, then the\nmixture would be permitted to utilize the aqueous solution of alcohol exception in\n§ 173.150(e).\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3. You ask if the answer to Q2 would be different for a material that does not include the\nconcentration ranges in its proper shipping name.\nA3. The answer is no. Any material which causes the mixture to meet the definition of an\nadditional hazard class would not be eligible for the exceptions in § 173.150(e).\nQ4. You ask whether the presence, at any concentration, of a material listed in § 172.101\nHMT by technical name precludes use of the exceptions in § 173.150(e).\nA4. The answer is that it depends on the materials present in the mixture. The presence of a\nmaterial listed in § 172.101 HMT alone does not necessarily preclude the use of the\nexceptions in § 173.150(e). However, if the material would cause the mixture to meet the\ndefinition of another hazard class, the mixture would not be eligible for the exceptions in\n§ 173.150(e). Also note that some hazardous materials, such as explosives, require a\nseparate evaluation and classification procedure and may be assigned to another hazard\nclass depending on the physical properties of the mixture.\nQ5. You ask whether the presence of a hazardous substance, as listed in Appendix A to\n§ 172.101, would preclude the use of the exceptions in § 173.150(e).\nA5. The answer is it depends. The presence of a hazardous substance alone would not be\nenough to preclude the use of the exceptions for aqueous solutions of alcohol in\n§ 173.150(e). However, if a hazardous substance in the mixture exceeds the reportable\nquantity amount listed in Appendix A to § 172.101 and is in a concentration by weight\nwhich equals or exceeds the concentration permitted under the definition for “Hazardous\nsubstance” in § 171.8, then the exceptions in § 173.150(e) can no longer be used.\nQ6. You note that some hazardous substances with more than one form are listed in Table 1\nto Appendix A of § 172.101 (“Ammonia” and “Ammonium hydroxide”). You ask how a\nshipper determines the most relevant form to apply.\nA6. It is the shipper’s responsibility to properly class and describe a hazardous material. The\nshipper must choose the form that best describes the material being shipped.\nQ7. You ask whether the presence of a marine pollutant, as listed in Appendix B to\n§ 172.101, would preclude the use of the exceptions in § 173.150(e).\nA7. The answer is it depends. The presence of a marine pollutant alone would not preclude\nthe use of the exceptions in § 173.150(e). However, if the mixture contains a marine\npollutant in a concentration which equals or exceeds the concentration permitted under\nthe definition for “Marine pollutant” in § 171.8, the use of the exception in § 173.150(e)\nwould not be permitted.\nQ8. You ask whether the answer to Q7 depends on whether the material is eligible for the\nmarine pollutant exceptions in § 171.4.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nA8. The answer is yes. If the mixture contains a marine pollutant as defined in § 171.8, but is\nnot required to be considered a marine pollutant in accordance with § 171.4(c)(1) or (2),\nthen the mixture may utilize the exception for aqueous solutions of alcohol in\n§ 173.150(e).\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nEamonn Patrick\nActing Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nWolcott\n22-0136\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nCc: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Questions regarding PHMSA Interpretation 20-0082\nDate: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 12:59:58 PM\nHi Alice,\nPlease see the below interpretation request.\nLet us know if you have any questions.\nRegards,\n-Breanna\nFrom: Skerrett, Kevin <Kevin.Skerrett@ul.com>\nSent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:01 AM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nSubject: FW: Questions regarding PHMSA Interpretation 20-0082\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.\nAfter discussion with Breanna at the HMIC on 12/9/2022 at 10:30, I would like to resubmit this as a\nrequest for a formal letter of interpretation addressing the questions below.\nPlease let me know if any additional information is needed.\nThank you very much for your consideration of this request!\nKevin Skerrett\n77 Clearbrook Drive\nRochester NY 14609\nkevin.skerrett@ul.com\nKevin Skerrett, DGSA\nSenior Regulatory Specialist\nUL Solutions\nT: +1.518.640.9287\nUL.com/Solutions\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nFrom: Skerrett, Kevin\nSent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 15:00\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nSubject: Questions regarding PHMSA Interpretation 20-0082\nI read with great interest the letter of interpretation 20-0082 from PHMSA regarding 173.150(e),\nand the “Perrigo request for interpretation” referenced in the 20-0082 PDF document.\nIn this interpretation, a product containing 1.20% of “Ammonia Solution, Strong NF” with CAS#\n7664-41-7 was determined to NOT exclude the product from taking the 173.150(e) exception for <\n24% alcohol because (bold added):\nThe answer is yes. If the ammonia solution component, in the concentration present in the\ngel, does 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 §\n173.150(e).\nAt first reading, this appears to be a change from previous interpretations issued on this exception –\nI would like confirmation as to whether that is true.\nThe background and wording of the Perrigo request certainly supported such a change but referring\nto the component as “ammonia solution” made that less certain.\nI am looking for informal confirmation with some urgency, as we have a product currently in review\nthat would be impacted by this.\nIf confirmed, we will be changing our process immediately.\nDiscussions with PHMSA at the time I submitted the request for interpretation 12-0238 indicated\nthat an ingredient such as an “ammonia solution”, if it met the criteria to be a “hazardous material”\nwhen added to the product, would result in the product not being eligible for the 173.150(e)\nexception.\nBut if the “ammonia solution” ingredient, as added, did NOT meet the criteria to be a “hazardous\nmaterial” as added to the product, then it’s presence would NOT prevent the product from being\neligible for the 173.150(e) exception.\nAlthough this is a determination that a manufacturer could easily make, by examining their raw\nmaterials and process, this is often impossible to assess for downstream users.\nOn a Safety Data Sheet, which is most often the only source of composition information\ndownstream, “ammonia solution” would NOT be a component, since it indicates a mixture.\nThe component would be “ammonia” CAS# 7664-41-7 or “ammonium hydroxide” CAS# 1336-21-6,\nand any additional water present would be rolled into the “water” component – thus all linkage to\nthe original source of the “ammonia” or “ammonium hydroxide” is lost.\nThe 20-0082 wording in bold above appears to indicate that PHMSA is now allowing us to consider\nwhether “ammonia” or “ammonium hydroxide” at 1.2% drives the product to a hazard (Class 8)\nother than Class 3 for the alcohol, as opposed to the ingredient as added.\nThis appears to address the “materials that meet the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions\nin part 173 of this subchapter” part of the Hazardous Material definition at 171.8.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nQUESTION #1: Do I correctly describe a change in PHMSA’s criteria in the preceding paragraph?\nWhile “ammonia, anhydrous” IS listed in the HMR by its technical name (UN1005), as a gas carrying\n2.2 or 2.3, that is not very relevant to an aqueous product.\nThe lowest concentration “ammonia solution” listing is UN2672, covering >10% to <= 35%.\nSince all the “ammonia solution” listings include a concentration range, is it correct to assume that\n“ammonia solution” does not prevent use of the 173.150(e) exception because the product is <10%\nammonia or ammonium hydroxide – so the product does not meet the “materials designated as\nhazardous in the Hazardous Materials Table” part of the Hazardous Material definition at 171.8,\neven if the ingredient did?\nWould this be different for a component such as “2-(2-Aminoethoxy) ethanol” (UN3055, CAS# 929-\n06-6), listed in the HMR by technical name, which does NOT include concentration ranges in its\nlisting?\nQUESTION #2: Does the mere presence, at any concentration, of a component listed in 172.101 by\ntechnical name preclude use of the 173.150(e) exception, or does it depend on whether it meets the\ndescription in the table, or whether the product carries the hazard the component is listed for?\n“Ammonium hydroxide” is listed in 172.101 Table 1 to Appendix A as a Hazardous Substance with RQ\n= 1000 lb.\nSuch a listing requires, in the definition of Hazardous Substance in 171.8, that a solution or mixture\nbe present at >=2% of the listed material.\nAt 1.2%, the product does not exceed this, even if the ingredient “as added” might have.\nBut “ammonia” is also listed, with RQ = 100 lb., which requires >= 0.2% in a solution or mixture –\nwhich the product DOES exceed.\nQUESTION #3: In assessing whether the presence of a “hazardous substance” precludes use of the\n173.150(e) exception, presence alone no longer appears to be the criterion. Does it depend on\nwhether the product exceeds the limit in the table at 171.8, or whether the product (as packaged)\nwould exceed the RQ?\nQUESTION #4: In the case of a “hazardous substance” with more than one form listed, does it\ndepend on the most relevant form?\n“Ammonia, anhydrous” and “ammonia solutions” are listed in 172.101 Appendix B as “Marine\nPollutants”, with the “solutions” listings mirroring the PSN descriptions in the Hazardous Materials\nTable.\nSince these are not listed as Severe Marine Pollutants, a product containing them does not itself\nbecome a Marine Pollutant unless it exceeds 10% per the definition of Marine Pollutant in 171.8.\nQUESTION #5: In assessing whether the presence of a “Marine Pollutant” precludes use of the\n173.150(e) exception, presence alone no longer appears to be the criterion. Does it depend on\nwhether the product exceeds the Marine Pollutant roll-up calculation in 171.8, or whether the\nproduct (as packaged) would need to be considered a Marine Pollutant?\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nQUESTION #6: Does the answer to QUESTION #5 depend on whether the product (as packaged) is\neligible for the Marine Pollutant exceptions at 171.4?\nSorry to be so detailed, but our current process includes all these considerations.\nWe would like to solidly understand whether the criteria have changed, and how, before we change\nour review process.\nI am hoping that this is a change, since this would make our review process much easier, and easier\nto understand for our clients and reviewers!\nThank you for considering these issues!\nKevin Skerrett, DGSA\nSenior Regulatory Specialist\nUL Solutions\nT: +1.518.640.9287\nUL.com/Solutions\nThis e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient: (1) you\nmay not disclose, use, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment(s); and (2) please notify\nthe sender by reply e-mail, and then delete this message and its attachment(s). Underwriters\nLaboratories Inc. and its affiliates disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in this\nmessage or any attachments.","truncated":false,"body_characters":13876}