{"operation":"document","citation":"24-0024","title":"Parker Hannifin Lord Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2024-04-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"24-0024 response to Parker Hannifin Lord Corporation concerning 173.227.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0024.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0024.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0024","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2024-04/240024.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nApril 3, 2024\nMr. Erik Steinbeck\nParker Hannifin Lord Corporation\n601 South Street\nSaegertown, PA 16433\nReference No. 24-0024\nDear Mr. Steinbeck:\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nThis letter is in response to your February 14, 2024, email and subsequent conversation with my\nstaff requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-\n180) applicable to the transportation of materials poisonous by inhalation in intermodal freight\ncontainers. You describe a scenario where drums containing “UN2487, Phenyl isocyanate, 6.1,\n(3), PG I” are transported by vessel in closed intermodal freight containers from China to the\nPort of New York. The intermodal freight containers are then placed on a vehicle chassis and\nsecured with the locks specifically designed to latch down the container—without intermediary\ncross-docking or unloading—and transported to their final destination. You note the packaging\nprovisions in § 173.227(c) state that “1A1, 1B1, 1H1, 1N1, 6HA1 or 6HH1 drums described in\nparagraph (b) of this section may be used without being further packed in a 1A2 or 1H2 drum if\nthe shipper loads the material, blocks and braces the drums within the transport vehicle and seals\nthe transport vehicle used.” In addition, § 173.227(c) states that “Drums may not be stacked\n(double decked) within the transport vehicles. Shipments must be from one origin to one\ndestination only without any intermediate pickup or delivery.” You ask whether an intermodal\nfreight container mounted on a vehicle chassis and secured with locks as described in your email\nmay be considered a closed transport vehicle for the purposes of the packaging provisions in\n§ 173.227(c).\nThe answer is yes. Based on the pictures and videos provided in your email, it is the opinion of\nthis Office that the intermodal freight container configuration described may be considered a\nclosed transport vehicle in accordance with § 173.227(c), as the closed container described is\npositioned on a vehicle chassis and secured using locks specifically designed to integrate it with\nthe semi-trailer in a mechanical manner.\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\n\n<<>>\n\n24-0024\nKelley\nJones, Jessie Jane CTR (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: UN2487- Phenyl Isocyanate. China to US imports. 173.227(c) applicability.\nFrom: Erik Steinbeck \nSent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 4:17:25 PM\nTo: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA) \nCc: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) ; Webb, Steven (PHMSA) \nSubject: RE: UN2487- Phenyl Isocyanate. China to US imports. 173.227(c) applicability.\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links\nor open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nOne additional photo of a chassis without freight container. Notice the posts- which rotate to locking into the corner\nposts.\n1\n\n<<>>\n\nFrom: Erik Steinbeck\nSent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 4:06 PM\nTo: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA) \nCc: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) ; Webb, Steven (PHMSA) \nSubject: UN2487- Phenyl Isocyanate. China to US imports. 173.227(c) applicability.\nShane,\nPer your request- please see the below photos, and the supplementary video link- both of which detail the mechanical\nunion of freight container to chassis body. Essentially there are 4 kingpins, one on each corner of the chassis. The freight\ncontainer is positioned atop the chassis, and the mounting pins are secured into place with a cam-over locking\nmechanism. I think the video does a better job of illustrating the process. I hope this helps.\nPlease advise if you need anything else from me to support a letter of interpretation on this topic. Happy to help in any\nway. Thanks again!\nContainer on chassis safety. (youtube.com)\n2\n\n<<>>\n\n65.9 CUM.\nCAP.\n2.330 CUFI\n\n<<>>\n\nErik\nFrom: Erik Steinbeck \nSent: Friday, January 5, 2024 1:24 PM\nTo: DerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA) \nSubject: 173.227(c). LOI #17-0005. Phenyl isocyanate imports\nImportance: High\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open\nattachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nGood afternoon sir,\nWe have two suppliers of an isocyanate substance properly classified under UN2487. One in the US, and one in China.\nOur US source will discontinue manufacture in July of this year, and the Chinese source cannot accommodate the US\npackaging requirements set-forth in 173.227, specifically the requirement for an outer and an inner drum configuration-\n4\n\n<<>>\n\nwhich is considerably more stringent than IMDG packing instruction P602. However, 173.227(c) provides relief from the\nouter drum requirement so long as certain requirements are met. Our proposed shipments will be loaded, blocked,\nbraced and sealed at origin (Shanghai) in 40ft cargo units. These will move directly by vessel to the port of New York, and\nthen to our final location in Saegertown without intermediary cross-docking or unloading. That being said, I assumed we\nmet the conditions of 173.227(c) and hence could omit he outer drum. However, our attorney on retainer cited the\nattached LOI which states a freight container (cargo unit) is not a “Transport Vehicle”, so the relief is NOT afforded.\nConsidering the robustness of an ocean cargo unit relative to an over the road dry van, I would like to challenge\nPHMSA to broaden their definition of transport vehicle, or otherwise amend paragraph C to accommodate importers.\nPresumably the update to 173.227 in 1990 was an intentional act to harmonize with the IMDG regulation- so limiting the\ndefinition of transport vehicle to a tractor, truck or semitrailer defeats the intended purpose.\nAs well, perhaps we can reconsider what is included within the term “transport vehicle.” A freight container leaving a\ndistribution point is mounted onto a chassis for the purpose of transporting cargo by any mode. Is it possible that when\na freight container is mounted onto a chassis and motive power, or loaded onto a vessel; the combined unit of the\ntrailer and the freight container, or vessel and freight container may be considered a transport vehicle?\nThis is an urgent matter, so I greatly appreciate your time and efforts as always.\nKind regards,\nErik Steinbeck, CDGP DGSA\nGlobal Logistics Manager\nParker Hannifin Corporation, LORD Division\nEngineered Materials Group\n601 South Street\nSaegertown, PA 16433\nDirect: 814 763 2345 x433\nMobile: 814 590 2200\nerik.steinbeck@parker.com\nwww.parker.com\nwww.lord.com\n5","truncated":false,"body_characters":6982}