Interpretation Response #22-0136
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name: UL Solutions
Individual Name: Mr. Kevin Skerrett
Location State: NY Country: US
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
September 12, 2024
Mr. Kevin Skerrett
UL Solutions
77 Clearbrook Drive
Rochester, NY 14609
Reference No. 22-0136
Dear Mr. Skerrett:
This letter is in response to your October 25, 2022, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the transportation of aqueous solutions of alcohol.
We have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:
Q1. You ask whether the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) allows offerors to consider the concentration of "ammonia" or "ammonium hydroxide" in an aqueous solution of alcohol when determining whether the exceptions in § 173.150(e) apply, as opposed to only considering the hazard class of the added ingredient.
A1. The answer is yes. If the ammonia component—in the concentration present in the aqueous solutions of alcohol—does not meet the definition of a "hazardous material" in § 171.8 and does not cause the mixture to meet the definition of an additional hazard class, then the presence of the ammonia component does not preclude the mixture from eligibility for the exception in § 173.150(e).
Q2. You note that "UN2672, Ammonia solution, 8" is listed in § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) with a concentration of greater than 10% but no more than 35% ammonia. You ask whether it is correct to assume that an "ammonia solution" with a concentration of less than 10% ammonia does not meet the definition of a "hazardous material" as specified in § 171.8 when considering the applicability of the § 173.150(e) exception.
A2. The answer is no. The concentration of the ammonia alone does not factor into the consideration for the applicability of the exceptions in § 173.150(e). If an aqueous solution of alcohol containing 1.2% ammonia-for example-was enough for the mixture to meet the definition of an additional hazard class, the mixture would no longer be permitted to utilize the exceptions in § 173.150(e). Similarly, if the concentration of ammonia was within the 10% to 35% range for "UN2672, Ammonia solution, 8", but the mixture still did not meet the definition of Class 8 or any additional hazard class, then the mixture would be permitted to utilize the aqueous solution of alcohol exception in § 173.150(e).
Q3. You ask if the answer to Q2 would be different for a material that does not include the concentration ranges in its proper shipping name.
A3. The answer is no. Any material which causes the mixture to meet the definition of an additional hazard class would not be eligible for the exceptions in § 173.150(e).
Q4. You ask whether the presence, at any concentration, of a material listed in § 172.101 HMT by technical name precludes use of the exceptions in § 173.150(e).
A4. The answer is that it depends on the materials present in the mixture. The presence of a material listed in § 172.101 HMT alone does not necessarily preclude the use of the exceptions in § 173.150(e). However, if the material would cause the mixture to meet the definition of another hazard class, the mixture would not be eligible for the exceptions in § 173.150(e). Also note that some hazardous materials, such as explosives, require a separate evaluation and classification procedure and may be assigned to another hazard class depending on the physical properties of the mixture.
Q5. You ask whether the presence of a hazardous substance, as listed in Appendix A to § 172.101, would preclude the use of the exceptions in § 173.150(e).
A5. The answer is it depends. The presence of a hazardous substance alone would not be enough to preclude the use of the exceptions for aqueous solutions of alcohol in § 173.150(e). However, if a hazardous substance in the mixture exceeds the reportable quantity amount listed in Appendix A to § 172.101 and is in a concentration by weight which equals or exceeds the concentration permitted under the definition for "Hazardous substance" in § 171.8, then the exceptions in § 173.150(e) can no longer be used.
Q6. You note that some hazardous substances with more than one form are listed in Table 1 to Appendix A of § 172.101 ("Ammonia" and "Ammonium hydroxide"). You ask how a shipper determines the most relevant form to apply.
A6. It is the shipper's responsibility to properly class and describe a hazardous material. The shipper must choose the form that best describes the material being shipped.
Q7. You ask whether the presence of a marine pollutant, as listed in Appendix B to § 172.101, would preclude the use of the exceptions in § 173.150(e).
A7. The answer is it depends. The presence of a marine pollutant alone would not preclude the use of the exceptions in § 173.150(e). However, if the mixture contains a marine pollutant in a concentration which equals or exceeds the concentration permitted under the definition for "Marine pollutant" in § 171.8, the use of the exception in § 173.150(e) would not be permitted.
Q8. You ask whether the answer to Q7 depends on whether the material is eligible for the marine pollutant exceptions in § 171.4.
A8. The answer is yes. If the mixture contains a marine pollutant as defined in § 171.8, but is not required to be considered a marine pollutant in accordance with § 171.4(c)(1) or (2), then the mixture may utilize the exception for aqueous solutions of alcohol in § 173.150(e).
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Eamonn Patrick
Acting Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
171.4, 171.4(c)(1) or (2), 171.8, 172.101, 173.150(e)