# Entegris — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **operation:** document - **citation:** 24-0046 - **title:** Entegris — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **source type:** guidance - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** guidance - **official:** true - **published on:** 2024-09-25 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** 24-0046 response to Entegris concerning 176.83. - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0046.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0046.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0046 - **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2024-10/240046.pdf **body:** <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 September 25, 2024 Shelley Stampfler Logistics Specialist IV Entegris 7 Commerce Drive Danbury, CT 06810 Reference No. 24-0046 Dear Ms. Stampfler: This letter is in response to your May 22, 2024, letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code applicable to the segregation of hazardous materials transported by vessel. We have paraphrased and answered questions as follows: Q1: You ask whether a Division 2.3 gas poisonous by inhalation (with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8 corrosive) and a Division 2.3 gas poisonous by inhalation (with a subsidiary hazard of Division 2.1 flammable gas) require segregation. A1: The answer is no, provided the Division 2.3 gases poisonous by inhalation are shipped in accordance with the applicable provisions detailed in § 176.83 of the HMR and section 7.2.6.1 of the IMDG Code. Multiple Division 2.3 gases poisonous by inhalation may be stowed in the same container for vessel transportation without regard to the subsidiary hazards, provided the different gases are not capable of reacting dangerously with each other and causing any of the conditions listed in § 176.83(a)(8), or section 7.2.6.1 of the IMDG Code. Specifically, as provided in § 176.83(a)(8) and in section 7.2.6.1, and notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs § 176.83(a)(6) and (a)(7) and sections 7.2.3.3 and 7.2.3.4 of the IMDG Code, hazardous materials of the same class may be stowed together without regard to segregation required by secondary hazards (subsidiary risk label(s)), provided the substances do not react dangerously with each other and cause: (1) a combustion and/or evolution of considerable heat; (2) an evolution of flammable, toxic, or asphyxiant gases; (3) the formation of corrosive substances; or (4) the formation of unstable substances. Q2: You ask whether a Division 2.3 gas poisonous by inhalation (with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8 corrosive) and a Division 2.3 gas poisonous by inhalation (with a subsidiary <<>> hazard of Division 2.1 flammable gas) can be stowed in the same transport unit when transported by vessel. A2: The answer is yes, as provided in answer A1. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Dirk Der Kinderen Chief, Standards Development Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division <<>> Jones, Jessie Jane CTR (PHMSA) From: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 2:20 PM To: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA) Cc: Hazmat Interps Subject: FW: Request for DOT Letter of Interpretation Attachments: USDOT-PHMSA Interpretation-Segregation of 2.3 Gases (002).pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Alice, Please see the below interpretation request and supporting documents attached. Let us know if you need anything, -Breanna From: Shelley Stampfler Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 3:53 PM To: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Subject: Request for DOT Letter of Interpretation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From: Shelley Stampfler Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 12:27 PM To: infocntr@dot.gov Subject: Stowage of Class 2 Gases for Vessel regarding segregation I have a question regarding stowage of the same types of gases in the same ocean container . The ocean carriers are consistently questioning the use of provision 7.2.6.1 of the IMDG code and 176.83 (a) (8) of the DOT 49 CFR regulations to co-load class 8 sub risk with class 2.1 sub risk with Primary Hazard class 2.3 Would it be possible to get a letter from the DOT in the form of a Competent Authority Approval that confirms the use of this provision . So the question would be Can a Class 2.3 Toxic Gas with a Sub risk of Class 8 be coloaded with a Class 2.3 Toxic Gas with a sub risk of class 2.1 provided Entegris meets the requirements as written In 7.2.6.1 of the IMDG code and 176.83 (a) (8) of the DOT 49 CFR regulations 1 <<>> I have attached a reference to an older interpretation letter from December 2012 showing ATMI as the company . ATMI was aquired by Entegris in 2014 and would like to request a simliar letter to submit to the carriers that question the use of this provision . Thank you for your assistance Regards, Shelley Stampfler Logistic Specialist IV SCEM T +1 203 739 1432 entegris.com Danbury Technology Center 7 Commerce Drive Danbury, CT 06810 USA ENTEGRIS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL – INTERNAL 2 <<>> of Transportation U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Materials Safety Pipeline and Hazardous Administration Mr. James McManus ATMI, Inc. DEC 2 O 2012 7 Commerce Drive Danbury, CT 06810 Ref. No.: 12-0239 Dear Mr. McManus: This responds to your October 23, 2012 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the segregation of hazardous materials when transported by vessel. Your questions are paraphrased and answered below. Q1: You ask if a Division 2.3 gas (with a subsidiary hazard of Division 2.1) and a Division 2.3 gas (with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8) require segregation? A1: The answer is no, provided the Division 2.3 gases are shipped in accordance with the applicable provisions detailed in § 176.83. Multiple Division 2.3 gases may be stowed in the same container for vessel transportation without regard to the subsidiary hazards, provided the different poison gas materials are not capable of reacting dangerously with each other and causing any of the conditions listed below. Specifically, as provided in § 176.83(a)(8) and notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7), hazardous materials of the same class may be stowed together without regard to segregation required by secondary hazards (subsidiary risk label(s)), provided the substances do not react dangerously with each other and cause: (1) a combustion and/or evolution of considerable heat; (2) an evolution of flammable, toxic or asphyxiant gases; (3) the formation of corrosive substances; or (4) the formation of unstable substances. 02: You ask if a Division 2.3 gas (with a subsidiary hazard of Division 2.1) and a Division 2.3 gas (with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8) can be stowed in the same transport unit when transported by vessel? A2: The answer is yes, as provided in Al. I trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Henn saster T. Glenn Foster Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 6913