{"operation":"document","citation":"12-0249","title":"Praxair Distribution, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2013-05-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"12-0249 response to Praxair Distribution, Inc. concerning 171.8, 172.406, 173.25.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0249.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0249.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0249","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2012/120249.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nMAY 2 2 2013\nMr. David B. Som1emann\nManager, Transport Regulations and Fleet Safety\nPraxair Distribution Inc.\n39 Old Ridgebury Road\nDanbury, CT 06810-5113\nReference No.: 12-0249\nDear Mr. Sonnemann:\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nThis is in response to your November 06, 2012 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You ask several questions concerning the\ndefinition of an overpack and marking and labeling requirements for cylinders in overpacks. Your\nquestions are paraphrased and answered below:\nQ I) A I) You request clarification as to whether the packaging configuration in the photo provided\n(Figure 1) is a unit load device. Figure 1 consists of a deck plate and one or more railings\nto which cylinders are secured through the use of strapping. You believe this\nconfiguration is not an overpack because (1) it is not an enclosure, (2) it meets the\ndefinition of a freight container in § 17I.8 except for having a volume less than 64 cubic\nfeet and (3) it is intended primarily for containment of packages in unit form.\nThe answer to your question is no. The packaging configuration in your photo (Figure I)\ndoes not meet the definition of a freight container or a unit load device. However, this\npackaging configuration does meet the defining criteria for an overpack.\nAs defined in§ 171.8, a unit load device is \"any type of freight container, aircraft\ncontainer, aircraft pallet with a net, or aircraft pallet with a net over an igloo.\" And a\nfi·eight container means \"a reusable container having a volume of 64 cubic feet or more,\ndesigned and constructed to permit being lifted with its contents intact and intended\nprimarily for containment of [smaller] packages (in unit form) during transportation.\"\nSince the packaging configuration in your photo (Figure 1) does not meet the definition of\na freight container, or any of the other package types described in the definition of unit\nload device, this packaging configuration cannot be categorized as a unit load device.\nIn contrast, the definition for overpack in§ 171.8, provides several examples of overpacks.\nOne such example is \"one or more packages placed or stacked onto a load board such as a\npallet and secured by strapping, shrink wrapping, stretch wrapping or other suitable\nmeans.\" This definition corresponds with the packaging configuration described in your\nletter.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ2) A2) Q3) A3) Q4) A4) You request clarification on the requirement to display the \"OVERPACK\" mark when an\noverpack contains multiple packages with different specifications.\nSection 173.25(a)(4) requires a shipper to mark the word \"OVERPACK\" on an overpack\nwhen specification packagings are required if the specification markings on the inside\npackages are not visible. Unlike the marking and labeling requirements in § 173.25(a)(2),\nthis provision does not exempt the overpack from being marked \"OVERPACK\" when a\nmarking representative of each inner package is visible; rather, the marking on every inner\npackage must be visible. However, since specification markings are unlikely to be visible\n· on the innermost packagings within an overpack and there is no basis to distinguish the\nrequirements in§ 173.25(a)(2) and (a)(4), it is reasonable for the \"OVERPACK\" mark to\nbe required, unless specification markings representative of each type included in the\noverpack are visible, as stated in Letter of Interpretation 10-0149. Therefore, PHMSA\nanticipates addressing this requirement in a future rulemaking.\nYou request acknowledgement that the labels shown in your photo (Figure 2) are visible as\nrequired by§ 173.25(a)(2).\nThe only visible label in Figure 2 is a neck ring label described in CGA Pamphlet C-7,\nAppendix A. As provided by § 172.400a, a cylinder containing a Division 2.1, 2.2 or 2.3\nmaterial that is not overpacked is authorized to be marked in accordance with CGA\nPamphlet C-7, Appendix A without further DOT labeling. However, since the cylinders in\nFigure 2 are overpacked that exception does not apply and a hazard warning label must be\napplied to each cylinder.\nAdditionally, the overpack must display appropriate marks and labels for each hazardous\nmaterial contained in the overpack unless marks and labels representative of each\nhazardous material in the overpack are visible, as required in§ 173.25(a)(2). The portions\nof the cylinders shown in Figure 2 (i.e. the upper portions) do not display any visible\nmarkings or labels, so markings and labels are required on the overpack. However, if\nunobscured markings and labels, representing each hazardous material in the overpack, are\nvisible on the lower portions of the cylinders that are not depicted, that is acceptable. (See\n49 C.F.R. Part 172, subparts D and E.)\nYou request acknowledgement that a protective mesh attachment shown in your photo\n(Figure 3) is allowable for the purpose of safeguarding labels against abrasion and damage\nduring transport. You state that the labels are not obscured by markings or attachments\nwhen using the protective mesh.\nThe mesh attachment pictured in the photo (Figure 3) you submitted does not appear to be\nconsistent with§ 172.406(f). The requirements for label visibility in § 172.406(f) specify\nthat labels \"must be clearly visible and may not be obscured by markings or attachments.\"\nThe intent of this requirement is to ensure that hazard communication labels clearly\nillustrate the hazards presented within the package, and that the view of the required label\nis not obstructed by any additional markings or packaging accessories that may reduce the\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\neffectiveness ofthe required hazard communication. As pictured, the mesh attachment in\nthe photo you provided reduces the effectiveness of the label to convey the hazards\nrepresented within the package by partially obscuring the text on the markings and labels,\nmaking them difficult to decipher.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\n~1:/11' .\nDelmer Billings ~\nSenior Regulatory Advisor\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nHftfilJIPRAXAIR\nPraxair Distribution Inc.\nvt/ i e-11}e y-\n~ Jrr3,2~6~\nB 111. ~ ,\nverpar IG5./YJ I Jnofers\nPraxair Distribution Inc. /l-0 :Z L/j\n39 Old Ridgebury Road\nDanbury, CT 06810-5113\nTel (203) 837-2294\nFax (203) 837-2503\nI. November 6, 2012\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nUS. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nATTN: Mr. Delmer Billings\nRe: Request for Interpretation; Section §173.25\nDear Mr. Billings:\nPraxair Distribution Inc. (\"PDI'') hereby requests interpretation of various sections ofthe\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) that define the term overpack and stipulate the\nrequirements for marking an overpack. In addition, PDI seeks clarification on the visibility of\nlabels affixed to a cylinder. The specific regulations and the interpretation for which PDI seeks\nclarification are § 171. 8, § 1 73.25, and PHMSA Letter of Interpretation # 10-0 149.\nPDI specifically requests clarification as to whether or not the transport device depicted in\nFigure 1 is a unit load device as PDI believes. The device in Figure 1 consists of a deck plate\nand one or more railings to which cylinders are secured and is used for more efficient\ntransport of cylinders.\nFigure 1.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nPraxair Distribution, Inc. Request for Interpretation § 173.25 Page 2 of3\nII. PDI believes that the transport device pictured in Figure 1 is a unit load device and not an\noverpack because it is not an enclosure and meets the definition of the termfreight container\nexcept for being smaller in volume than sixty-four (64) cubic feet. As defined in §171.8, a unit\nload device is any type of freight container designed and constructed to permit being lifted with\nits contents intact and intended primarily for containment of packages (in unit form) during\ntransportation. The device pictured in Figure 1, is intended primarily for containment of\npackages (in unit form) during transportation and meets the other defining criteria as well. On\nthe basis that the transport device is a unit load device and not an overpack, section 173.25,\nAuthorized packagings and overpacks does not apply.\nPDI requests clarification ofPHMSA's interpretation found in Letter oflnterpretation 10-\n0149 requiring the \"OVERPACK marking\" unless the overpack contains multiple packages\nwith identical package specification marking provided package specification markings\nrepresentative of each package specification contained in the overpack are visible from the\noutside. While this requirement is understood, it creates the unintended consequence\nrequiring marking of most overpacks containing multiple cylinders because cylinders\nconsolidated in an overpack typically have different package specification markings\nThis interpretation means that an overpack used to consolidate cylinders containing a gas of\nthe same proper shipping name and strapped to a wooden pallet may have to be marked\n\"OVERPACK\" because the cylinders may be aluminum, steel, or nickel cylinders having\ndifferent package specification marking. Figure 2 illustrates a TC cylinder and a DOT\nspecification cylinder containing the same product.\nIII. Figure 2.\nPDI seeks acknowledgement and clarification that labels shown in Figure 2 are visible as\nrequired by § 173.25(a)(2) for cylinders provided with a mesh covering to protect labels and\nmarking and contained in an overpack. As shown in Figure 3 below, PDI applies protective\nmesh over DOT required labels to guard against abrasion and other damage to labels while a\ncylinder is in transportation. As shown in Figure 3, the labels affixed to the cylinder are\nvisible and not obscured by markings or attachments. In fact, words on the label and the\nCGA C-7 marking are readable through the mesh.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nPraxair Distribution, Inc. Request for Interpretation § 173.25 Page 3 of3\nfigure 3.\nOn the basis of the information presented in items I, II, and III above, PDI hereby requests\nPHMSA issue an interpretation and a further clarification to Letter of Interpretation 10-0149 to\naddress the three issues for defining PDI's transport device as a unit load device and answering\nquestions raised in items II and III of this letter.\nThank you, for your time cooperation in this matter.\nRespectfully submitted,\nDavid B. Sonnemann\nManager, Transport Regulations and Fleet Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSEP 3 2010\nMr. Mike Ritchie\nHazardous Materials Specialist\nMinnesota Department of Transportation\n395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mail Stop 460\nSt. Paul, MN 55155\nRef. No. 10-0149\nDear Mr. Ritchie:\nThis responds to your July 16,2010 letter requesting clarification ofthe overpack marking and\nlabeling requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-\n180). Specifically. you ask if clear shrink wrapped pallets must be marked on the outside with\nthe required package markings (e.g., proper shipping name, identification number, orientation\narrows, and \"OVERPACK\") when the markings on individual packages are not visible because\nof the package configuration, but markings and labels representative of each hazardous material\nare visible from the outside of the overpack. Your areas of concern are restated and answered as\nfollows:\nLabels and Proper Shipping Name/Identification Number Markings\nSection 173.25(a)(2) requires the overpack to be marked with the proper shipping name and\nidentification number, and labeled for each hazardous material contained therein, unless\nmarkings and labels representative of each hazardous material in the overpack are visible. For\nexample, an overpack need not be marked and labeled ifthe markings (i.e., proper shipping\nname and identification number) and labels on an individual package inside the overpack are not\nvisible but the same markings (i.e., proper shipping name and identification number) and labels\nrepresentative of that package are clearly visible from the outside on another package contained\nin that overpack.\nOrientation Arrow Marking\nSection 173.25{a)(3) requires an overpack containing packages subject to the orientation arrow\nmarking requirements of§ 172.312 to be marked with orientation arrows on two opposite\nvertical sides of the overpack. This requirement is in addition to the orientation arrows\ndisplayed on the individual packages.\n-~~------~----~\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n\"OVERPACK\" Marking\nSection 173.25(a)(4) requires an overpack to be marked \"OVERPACK\" when specification\npackagings are required, unless specification markings on the inside packages are visible. The\n\"OVERPACK\" marking is not required if the overpack contains multiple packages with\nidentical package specification markings provided package specification markings\nrepresentative of each package specification contained in the overpack are visible from the\noutside.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.\nSincerely,\nBenSupko\nActing Chief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nSubject:\nBetts, Charles (PHMSA)\nFriday, July 16, 2010 2:56PM\nDrakeford, Carolyn {PHMSA)\nFW: Marking of overpacks\noeh er1 taab\n~ 1/3·:25 l73.312.\n0 verpuc l<.s\nlO- Dt'-IC(\nPlease log this in as a new request for interpretation.\nThanks,\nCharles\nFrom: Ritchie, Mike (DOT} [mailto:Michaei.Ritchie@state.mn.us]\nSent: Friday, July 16, 2010 2:29 PM\nTo: Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nSubject: Marking of overpacks\nJuly 16, 2010\nCharles Betts\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nUS DOT/ PHMSA\n1200 New Jersey Avenue\nWashington, DC 20590\nRe: Marking, labeling and Display of Package Specifications on Overpacks\nDear Mr. Betts,\n49 CFR 173.25 requires overpacks to be marked with the proper shipping name and identification number, and\nthe authorized labels, for each hazardous material contained in the overpack, unless those labels and marks\nare visible on the packages. Paragraph (a) {4) of that section requires the overpack to be marked with the\nword OVERPACK when the hazardous material is required to be in specification packaging unless the\nspecification markings on the inside packages are visible.\nThe most common type of overpack our safety investigators encounter while doing Hazardous Materials\nPackage Inspection Program (HMPIP) inspections are shrink wrapped pallets. Many are not marked\nOVERPACK. These pallets often contain different types of packages, for example drums and boxes on the same\npallet, and may contain several different hazardous materials. labels and marking on packages loaded in the\ncenter of the pallet are not visible because they are covered by packages on the edge or top of the pallet.\nMany non-bulk packages display the required hazmat marking and labels on a different surface than the\nprinted or embossed specification marking required by §178.3.\nQuestion: If an overpack contains packages requiring specification marks, must all specification marks on each\npackage be visible or is a representative sample of each different specification mark acceptable?\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nQuestion: If packages displaying orientation arrows as required in §172.312 are in an overpack, and those\norientation arrows are visible on the packages on two opposite sides of the overpack, must additional\norientation arrows be added the outside of the overpack to comply with §173.25 {a) (3)?\nYours truly,\nMichael Ritchie\nHazardous Materials Specialist\nMinnesota Department of Transportation\nOffice of Freight & Commercial Vehicle Operations\n395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mail Stop 460\nSt. Paul, MN 55155-1899\n(651) 366-3697\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":15930}