# PRI International, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

**Citation:** 16-0122  
**Type / status:** guidance / guidance  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2016-07-25

16-0122 response to PRI International, Inc. concerning 172.401.

## Document text

<<<PAGE 1>>>

of Transportation
U.S. Department
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C. 20590
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration
JUL 2 5 2016
Mr. Vincent Vitollo
The Journal of HazMat Transportation
President & Publisher
PRI International, Inc.
404 Price Street
West Chester, PA 19382
Reference No. 16-0122
Dear Mr. Vitollo:
Thank you for your inquiry of July 8, 2016 regarding the appearance of Globally Harmonized
System for the Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) pictograms on transport
packagings, such as portable tanks. In your correspondence, you note that we indicated under
a previous interpretation (13-0038) that the appearance of such pictograms did not constitute a
violation of the U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 100-180), as
labels conforming to the GHS (see 49 CFR § 172.401(c)) are specifically authorized. As such,
the display of a label not required by DOT but consistent with the GHS, while not required in
transportation or storage incidental thereto, is not a violation of the HMR. This includes
packages meeting the definition of a "bulk package" as defined by the HMR.
Subsequent to the issuance of interpretation letter 13-0038 the provisions of the GHS were
amended to specify that "in transport, a GHS pictogram not required by the UN Model
Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Regulations should only appear as
part of a complete GHS label (see 1.4.10.5.4.1) and not independently." See GHS Rev. 6,
1.4.10.4.4. This amendment to the GHS is consistent with OSHA's Hazard Communication
Standard (HCS), 29 CFR § 1910.1200. The provisions of 49 CFR § 172.401 (c) apply only to
labeling in accordance with the GHS, and subsequently in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR
§ 1910.1200(f).
Based on this recent clarification to the provisions of the GHS, we are updating our response
in interpretation letter 13-0038. We note that the examples provided in the incoming letter
included GHS pictograms visible in transportation and not displayed as a part of a complete

<<<PAGE 2>>>

GHS label. Such display would not meet the provisions of § 172.401(c)(5) and would
therefore be subject to § 172.401(b) which prohibits "any marking or label which by its color,
design, or shape could be confused with or conflict with a label prescribed by" the HMR
We appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention and hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Duane A. Pfund
International Standards Coordinator
Standards and Rulemaking Division

<<<PAGE 3>>>

Cc: Schoonover, William (PHMSA)
Subject: Question from The Journal of HazMat Transportation
Joe,
Attached is a question that we are requesting be addressed by PHMSA regarding its work and progress with
OSHA in resolving certain hazcom issues. We also are making an inquiry regarding a specific letter of
interpretation relative to this area. Our question is attached.
Would you kindly advise as to when you may be able to provide a response. We were hoping to possible
publish something on this topic in our next issue, athough our deadline may be a little tight: July 25.
Thank you. Ilook forward to hear from you.
Regards,
Vincent Vitollo
The Journal of HazMat Transportation
President & Publisher
PRI International, Inc.
(877) 429-7447
www.hazmatship.com
Compliance - Security - Safety
For All Modes of Transportation
3

<<<PAGE 4>>>

The Journal of HazMat Transportation™
July 8, 2016
Question for the PHMSA
We understand that PHMSA is working with OSHA to resolve hazard communication concerns
regarding the potential confusion that may result from the display of OSHA hazcom elements
on a transportation package in a situation involving an emergency response to a transportation
incident. Can you update us on where you are in terms of working with OSHA and what
PHMSA's objectives for this effort are?
PHMSA issued an interpretation letter (see interpretation letter #13-0038) which allows the
appearance of GHS pictograms the size of placards on transport packagings such as portable
tanks. This interpretation letter appears contrary to a new GHS which states:
"In transport, a GHS pictogram not required by the UN Model Regulations on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Regulations should only appear as part of a
complete GHS label (see 1.4.10.5.4.1) and not independently."
Does PHMSA agree that the interpretation letter is contrary to the new GHS text or does
PHMSA still maintain that its earlier interpretation is still valid, particularly considering that
both PHMSA and OSHA supported the GHS clarification? Are there any plans to reconsider the
interpretation letter?
- as an

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/160122_edit.pdf>
- Source ID: `phmsa`
- SHA-256: `6293f4e3fc53f146db2e3083abb399bfc94b5e383f9e43c5c3113991569e816f`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T00:59:31.977Z
- Exported: 2026-08-23T09:11:17.346Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-interpretation-16-0122`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "materialSubtype": "interpretation",
  "interpretationArea": "hazardous_materials",
  "representation": "full_text_from_official_pdf",
  "companies": [
    "PRI International, Inc."
  ],
  "individuals": [
    "Mr. Vincent Vitollo"
  ],
  "refIds": [
    "16-0122"
  ],
  "catalogDates": [
    "2016-07-25"
  ],
  "catalogParts": [
    172
  ],
  "catalogRowCount": 1,
  "sourceRecordUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/68416"
  ],
  "linkedAttachmentUrls": [],
  "unavailableResponseUrls": [],
  "duplicateRepresentationUrls": [],
  "citedSections": [
    "172.401",
    "172.401(c)"
  ],
  "catalogPageUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/172401"
  ],
  "pdfUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/160122_edit.pdf"
  ],
  "representations": [
    {
      "viewUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/160122_edit.pdf",
      "detailUrl": null,
      "detailHtmlPath": null,
      "pdfUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/160122_edit.pdf",
      "pdfArtifactPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/16-0122-b4d48fc07a.pdf",
      "pdfArtifactSha256": "c05231a3b1a842c09b21d69a32e69554a39b5b05b1159a3d07cb52ad6c0dfc15",
      "extractedTextPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/16-0122-b4d48fc07a.v2.txt",
      "extractedTextSha256": "d69decb10d04644ecbc3595f1141c673b7873e2d395f770324c397f9e1c61362",
      "pageCount": 4,
      "extractionVersion": 2
    }
  ],
  "caveat": "Interpretations apply regulations to the facts presented and do not create independently enforceable requirements.",
  "jurisdiction": "US"
}
```
