Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Deportment of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration JAN - 5 2010 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington. DC 20590 Mr. Mark A. Connolly Manager - Transportation Regulations and Security Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. 525 West Van Buren Street Chicago, IL 60607-3823 Ref. No.: 09-0275 Dear Mr. Connolly: This responds to your email dated November 11,2009 requesting clarification ofthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the display of marine pollutant marks on non-bulk packagings. You enclosed a picture of a brown box with a preprinted black marine pollutant mark. Your questions are summarized and answered as follows: Q1. Does PHMSA agree that the mark depicted in the picture does not satisfy the requirement ofthe HMR or the marking requirements ofthe International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code)? AI. As specified in § 172.322, the marine pollutant mark must be black on a white background or the symbol, border, and background must be ofcontrasting color to the surface to which the marking is to be affixed. The background ofthe mark shown in the picture does not contrast with the surface ofthe box; thus, it does not satisfy § 172.322(e)(2). Subject to the conditions and limitations in § 171.22, 171.23, 171.24, 171.25, and 171.26, as appJicable, hazardous materials may be offered for transportation and transported in the United States in accordance with requirements in the IMDG Code. Therefore, IMDG Code markings such as the marine pollutant mark may be used when hazardous materials are transported to, from or within the United States, provided aU or part ofthe transportation is by vessel. Section 5.2.1.2 ofthe IMDG Code requires the marine pollutant mark to be displayed on a contrasting background on the external surface ofa package. The black marking contrasts with the brown background in the picture you provided; therefore, it satisfies the marking requirements ofthe IMDG Code and may be displayed in that manner when a package is offered and transported in accordance with the IMDG Code.#

Page 2Q2. Would the mark be compliant with the HMR if the background of the mark were white? A2. Yes. See § 172.322(e)(2). Q3. May the marine pollutant mark be placed on an adjacent side of a box when the size of the box is not conducive to placing both the mark and the label on the same side? A3. Yes. The marine pollutant mark must be placed "in association" with any hazard warning labels (§ 172.322(a)(2)). In this scenario, the placement of the marking on an adjacent side of the box satisfies the "in association" requirement. I hope this answers your inquiry. Sincerely, I ~ 1 ; ? t7;) f)" I /J. n 1 v/~ .. :-;t '<-I) 'it, Ii. /' ,I, I . ~-- I Charles E. Betts t:hief, Standards Development Oflke of Hazardous Materials Standards#

Page 3£t~ Page lof2 Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) &3/7Z~360 ?s t I From: Mazzullo, Ed (PHMSA) Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:50 PM To: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) Cc: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA); PHMSA PHH10 Subject: FW: Marine Pollutant Mark Importance: High Attachments: Sample cartons with MP label.jpg From: Connolly, M (Mark) [mailto:Mark.Connolly@AkzoNobel.com] sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:03 PM To: Mazzullo, Ed (PHMSA) Subject: Marine Pollutant Mark Importance: High Hi Ed, A follow-up to our telephone discussion last week regarding marine pollutant marking of nonbulk packaging. I have obtained the attached photo from our folks in Asia of an example of preprinted marine pollutant mark and 5.2 hazard label on a fiberboard box for transport from Asia via water to the U.S. It is my interpretation that this mark does not meet DOT requirements for transport within the U.S. Marine Pollutant mark Item 1. The marking section of 172.300 does not have a subparagraph which recognizes the UN and IMDG marks ( as does the 172.401 for prohibits labels). Do you agree that this mark does not meet the requirements of 172.322 (e)(2)? It is my interpretation that since the background of the mark does not contrast with the surface to which the mark is affixed it doesn't not meet DOT or IMO either. Item 2 Do you agree that to make this acceptable for transport either the background must be white OR they reprint the marine pollutant mark with a white background on the box (it does not come out pearly white but does contrast with the color of the surface of the box. Item 3. If the surface of the side of the box is not large enough to enable the 5.2 hazard label and the marine pollutant mark to both be affixed - the marine pollutant mark may be affixed to an adjacent side of the box. [172.304, 172.322] Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Mark 1111712009#