{"operation":"document","citation":"23-0085","title":"Texas Highway Patrol — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2024-02-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"23-0085 response to Texas Highway Patrol concerning 172.101, 178.703.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-23-0085.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-23-0085.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-23-0085","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/78191/230085.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nFebruary 21, 2024\nDustin Henderson\nTrooper\nTexas Highway Patrol\n1600 West Loop 306\nSan Angelo, TX 76904\nReference No. 23-0085\nDear Trooper Henderson:\nThis letter is in response to your September 12, 2023, email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to intermediate bulk\ncontainer (IBC) markings and proper shipping names. Specifically, you ask several questions\nabout improper IBC specification markings and the order of “qualifying words” in a proper\nshipping name.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. You ask whether an IBC is considered a non-specification packaging if part of the\npackage marking required by § 178.703 is missing or does not conform to the\nrequirements of the HMR. Examples provided in your email include a missing “1” or “2”\ncode, indicating whether the IBC is a flexible or rigid package; a missing “X”, “Y”, or\n“Z” code, indicating the packing group rating; a package marking smaller than the 12 mm\nminimum size; and an incorrect specification code, specifically that the code indicates the\nIBC is composite when it is actually steel.\nA1. The answer is no. An IBC manufactured in accordance with the requirements of Part 178\nsubparts N and O is considered a United Nations (UN) specification IBC if it meets all\nthe applicable manufacturing requirements of Part 178 and continuing qualification\nrequirements in Part 180. In accordance with § 178.2(a)(2), marking of a packaging with\nthe appropriate Department of Transportation (DOT) or UN markings is the certification\nthat: (1) all requirements of the DOT specification or UN standard—including\nperformance tests—are met; and (2) all functions performed by—or on behalf of—the\nperson whose name or symbol appears as part of the marking conform to requirements.\nAn incorrectly marked packaging is a source of confusion and must be corrected upon\ndiscovery. A packaging used to transport hazardous material in commerce with an\nuncorrected error in the package marking is in violation of the HMR; however, it does not\nnecessarily mean the packaging is a “non-specification” packaging. An error in the\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nspecification marking is not equivalent to physically removing the marking or securely\ncovering the marking to disassociate the packaging for the marking that represents it as a\nDOT or UN specification packaging.\nQ2. You ask whether “mixture,\n” “solution,\n” “liquid,” “solid,\n” “molten,\n” and “stabilized” are\nthe only qualifying words recognized in the HMR. You note that § 172.101(c)(4) makes\nthe sequence of qualifying words in a proper shipping name optional, although the order\npresented in the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) may be the preferred order.\nA2. The answer is no. The HMR neither defines nor limits to a specific list of “qualifying\nwords.” However, it is the opinion of this Office that qualifying words include\ndescriptors that modify the primary chemical name or identifier in the § 172.101 HMT.\nTherefore, there are other qualifying words besides those noted in § 172.101(c)(16) and\n(c)(17). Additional examples of qualifying words include, but are not limited to,\n“compressed,\n” “dry,\n” “anhydrous,” “hydrate,\n” and “wetted.”\nQ3. For the HMT entry “UN3286, Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s., 3 (6.1, 8), PG\nII”, you ask whether the words “toxic” and “corrosive” are qualifying words and\ntherefore may be used in either order.\nA3. The answer is no. In this HMT entry, the words “toxic” and “corrosive” are not\n“qualifying words,\n”\n—see for example authorized qualifying words addressed in answer\nA2 of this letter and in § 172.101(c)(10), (c)(16), and (c)(17)—rather they identify the\nsubsidiary hazards for the material as determined by the relevant classification criteria of\nthe HMR. In the HMT entry described above, the proper shipping name must be written\nin the order as it appears in the HMT: “Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s.”\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\nEnclosures\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nPatrick\n23-0085\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Updated - Request for official PHMSA interpretation\nDate: Friday, September 15, 2023 9:36:59 AM\nAttachments: image001.png\nimage002.png\nimage003.png\nimage004.png\nimage005.png\nimage006.png\nimage007.png\nHello Alice,\nPlease see the below interpretation request. Let us know if you need anything.\nSincerely,\nJanaye\nFrom: Henderson, Dustin <Dustin.Henderson@dps.texas.gov>\nSent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 4:45 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nSubject: Updated - Request for official PHMSA interpretation\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.\nTo whom it concerns,\nI am seeking an official PHMSA interpretation for the following questions, as there is some confusion\namong the hazardous materials industry and enforcement community.\n1. I understand from Reference 08-0286 - Response 1 that an IBC is a non-specification\npackaging if it no longer displays any specification markings. Reference 10-0186 relates to\ndestroying, removing, or covering the UN marking and the specification identification on the\nspecification plate. However, I am requesting clarification on how the individual components\nof the marking required by 178.703(a)(1) affect the packaging’s status as a specification\npackaging. If a packaging code marking, as required per 178.703(a)(1), is missing a required\ncomponent or has a required component that does not comply with the HMRs, is the\npackaging considered a non-specification packaging? Several examples needing clarification,\naddressing the different components, are listed below.\n1. Entirely or partially missing IBC design type (i.e., a package that appears to be a\ncomposite IBC with a rigid plastic inner receptacle for liquids displays a packaging code\nmissing the “1” after the “A”):\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n2. Missing the performance standard or displaying a character other than X, Y, or Z.\nWould the absence of the performance standard, or the displaying of a character\nother than X, Y, or Z, constitute an unauthorized packaging if the IBC design type and\nall other components are present, complete, and legible?:\n3. Entirely or partially missing the month and year of manufacture:\n4. Entirely or partially missing the country authorizing the allocation of the mark:\n5. Entirely or partially missing the name and address or symbol of the manufacturer or\nthe approval agency certifying compliance:\n6. Entirely or partially missing the stacking test load:\n7. Entirely or partially missing the maximum permissible gross mass:\n8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Entirely or partially missing any additional markings required in 178.703(b) if it’s a\nmetal, rigid plastic, or composite IBC?\nEntirely or partially missing, or wrong size, additional stacking marking required in\n178.703(b)(7) if manufactured, repaired, or remanufactured after January 1, 2011?\nThe packaging code marking is not 12mm in height as required by 178.703(a)(1).\nIncorrect information. For example, a metal IBC displays the IBC design type for a\ncomposite IBC.\nThe United Nations symbol, or the capital letters “UN,” is missing.\n2. When reviewing 172.101 to determine which words are “qualifying words,” those words,\nwhen used as part of the proper shipping name, their sequence in the package markings and\nshipping paper description is optional, the only ones specified are mixture, solution, liquid,\nsolid, molten, and stabilized. Are these the only “qualifying words”? If not, what other words\nare “qualifying words”?\n3. Given the shipping description, ‘UN3286, Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s., 3 (6.1, 8),\nPG II’ are the words toxic and corrosive “qualifying words” whose sequence is optional and\ncan therefore be interchanged to read ‘UN3286, Flammable liquid, corrosive, toxic, n.o.s., 3\n(8, 6.1), PG II’? Would the shipping description ‘UN3286, Flammable liquid, corrosive, toxic,\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nn.o.s., 3 (8, 6.1), PG II’ violate the HMRs?\nI appreciate your assistance in this manner. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions\nregarding this request for interpretation.\nDustin Henderson, Trooper III\nTexas Highway Patrol\nCommercial Vehicle Enforcement\n1600 West Loop 306\nSan Angelo, TX 76904\n(432) 553-4188 (cell)","truncated":false,"body_characters":8674}