{"operation":"document","citation":"13-0171","title":"Aerospace — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2014-05-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"13-0171 response to Aerospace concerning 171.8, 173.25, 173.301.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0171.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0171.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0171","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2013/130171.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMAY 0 1 2014\nMr. Jeff Christafore\nDangerous Good Compliance Specialist\nAerospace\n2400 Aviation Way\nBridgeport, WV 26330\nRef. No. 13-0171\nDear Mr. Christafore:\nThis is in response to your e-mail requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR 171-180) applicable to the marking and labeling requirements\nfor boxes containing non-bulk packages. Your scenarios and questions are paraphrased and\nanswered below:\nIn your first scenario, you state that cylinders manufactured under DOT-SP 8162, that are\nmarked as such, are packaged in an outer fiberboard box. You state that while the cylinder\nhas no hazardous materials markings or labels applied to it, the outer package is marked with\n\"UN1072, Oxygen, compressed,\" the shipper's and consignee's address, and an\n\"OVERPACK\" marking. Further, you state that the outer packaging also displays Division\n2.2 (Non-flammable compressed gas) and Division 5.1 (Oxidizer) hazard labels. Finally,\nyou state that this package is placed in an additional outer package that does not bear a DOT-\nSP number, and the accompanying shipping paper does not provide a notation of \"DOT -SP\"\nfollowed by the Special Permit number as required by§ 172.203(a).\nQ 1: You ask whether this scenario represents an overpack according to § § 173.25 and\n171.8?\nAI: The fiberboard box containing the cylinder is the package. The secondary box is an\noverpack as defined by§ 171.8, and subject to the marking requirements for\noverpacks as specified in§ 173.25.\nQ2: Is the outer package required to be marked \"DOT-SP 8162\"?\nA2: No. According to paragraph 8.h. ofDOT-SP 8162, the requirements to mark\nshipping papers and packages with the special permits number in accordance with\n§§ 172.202(a) and 172.301(c) is not required.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3: A3: Q4: A4: Q5: AS: You ask if the package in your scenario were placed in an overpack, would the\noverpack need to indicate \"inside packages comply with prescribed specifications\" as\nwell as \"OVERPACK''? It is your understanding that since a specification cylinder is\nnot contained anywhere in the package, this statement would not be required, but that\nthe \"DOT-SP 8162\" and \"OVERPACK\" markings would be required.\nSection 7.c.(5) ofDOT-SP 8162 requires cylinders under this special permit to be\npackaged in accordance with§ 173.301(a)(9) which requires an outer packaging.\nThe \"OVERPACK\" marking is required on the secondary box which is considered an\noverpack under§ 173.25.\nDoes this package needs to be marked with an indication that the inner packaging\nconforms to the prescribed specifications, since this packaging (cylinder) is\nauthorized by a special permit and is not a specification cylinder that is listed in\n§ 173.301(a)(9)?\nThe answer is no. Because these cylinders are not listed in§ 173.301(a)(9), they are\nnot required to be marked with an indication that inner packagings conform to the\nprescribed specifications.\nYou ask if cylinders must be placed inside an overpack (outer package) and marked\n\"OVERPACK\" if the specification markings on the cylinder inside are not visible?\nYou further ask if the combination package must be correctly marked as well as the\noverpack?\nThe visibility of the specification markings on the cylinder would not affect whether\na combination package could be placed inside an overpack. You are correct that the\ncombination package (cylinder in a fiberboard box) is required to have all the\nrequired markings and labels. In addition, the overpack (the second box) is required\nto display all markings and labels required under § 173 .25.\nIn your second scenario, you state that cylinders used as fire extinguishers are manufactured\nunder \"DOT -SP 7945\" or \"DOT -SP 8495,\" marked with the special permit numbers, and\npackaged in an outer fiberboard box. Further, you state that the cylinders have no hazardous\nmaterials markings or labels applied to them, but the outer package is marked with the\nproper shipping name \"UN1044, Fire Extinguishers,\" the shipper's and consignee's address,\nthe DOT-SP number, and displays a 2.2 (Non-flammable compressed gas) hazard label. You\nask if this scenario would represent an overpack or would it be a combination package?\nIn your second scenario, the package you describe would be a combination package because\nit is required to be shipped in a strong outer packaging in accordance with§ 173.301(a)(9)\nas described in paragraph 8.(f) of \"DOT SP-7945\" and paragraph 8.(g) of \"DOT SP-8495.\"\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nI trust this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nBombardier AerosiPace\n2400 Aviation Way\nBridgeport, WV 26~130\nOffice Phone: 304-l348-5202\nMobile Phone: 304-975-4229\nwww.bombardier.com\nBOMBARDIER\nthe evolution of mobility\nAugust 15, 2013\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nAttn: PHH-10\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nEast Building\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nMadam or Sir,\nI am requesting a Letter of Interpretation for the packaging of cylinders listed in the following scenarios. These scenarios\nare based on packages we have received at our facilities.\nBased on my knowhedge of the regulations and some conversations with representatives of the PHMSA HMIC, I believe\nthat these shipments may be improperly marked.\nI would appreciate any clarification you can provide.\nScenario 1: A cylinder, manufactured under DOT-SP 8162 and marked with this special permit number, is packaged in\nan outer fiberboard lbox. The cylinder has no HAZMAT markings or labels applied to it, but the outer package is marked\nwith UN1072 Oxygen, compressed, the shipper and consignee address, and an \"OVERPACK\" marking, as well as\ndisplaying 2.2 and 5.1 Hazard Labels. However, the outer package does not bear a DOT-SP marking that is required by\n172.301 (c) and the shipping paper does not provide a notation of DOT-SP followed by the special permit number, as\nrequired by 172.203(a).\nQuestion 1: Does 1this scenario actually represent an overpack according to 173.25 and 171.8? My understanding is that\neach package in an overpack must be independently capable of being transported as a Hazmat package and that this\nwould be a combination package, not an overpack.\nQuestion 2: With this scenario would the outer package be required to display a DOT-SP 8162 marking? It is my\nunderstanding that an outer package containing a packaging authorized by a Special Permit must be marked with \"DOT-\nSP\" followed by the special permit number, according to 172.301 (c) and the shipping papers must contain the DOT-SP\nnumber per 172.20a(a).\nPage 1 of 3\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nQuestion 3: If this package was placed in an \"OVERPACK\" would the outer package of the overpack need to indicate\n\"inside packages comply with prescribed specifications\" as well as \"OVERPACK\"? It would be my understanding that\nsince a specification cylinder is not contained anywhere in the package, this statement would not be required, but the\nDOT-SP 8162 and \"OVERPACK\" markings would be required.\nQuestion 4: Does this package need to be marked with an indication that inner packaging conforms to the prescribed\nspecifications, since this packaging (cylinder) is authorized by a Special Permit and not a specification cylinder that is\nlisted in 173.301(a)(9)? Would the DOT-SP number marking instead be sufficient in this case?\nQuestion 5: Would this requirement that is listed in a ground carrier's \"Hazmat Shipping Guide\" be considered as\ncomplying with the applicable regulations when applied using the above scenario? \"Class 2 cylinders must be placed\ninside an overpack (outer package) marked \"OVERPACK\" unless specification markings on the cylinder inside are visible.\nRegardless, all cylinders must be placed in an outer package'~ It is my belief that this package is not an overpack by\ndefinition in 171.8 and would only be a combination package. It also my belief that this carrier's requirement is not a\ncorrect usage of an overpack unless the cylinder was packaged in an outer package which was correctly marked and\nlabeled and then placed in another outer package upon which all markings and labels were reproduced and included the\n\"OVERPACK\" marking.\nNote: I am providing pictures below of a shipment received at one of our facilities with cylinders packaged as described\nin Scenario 1 marked as OVERPAQ_K, which were then placed in an outer package that was marked with \"inside\npackages comply with prescribed specific<!ti~ns\" and also an \"OV~R.PACK\" marking.\nOuter Package Inside Package\nDOT -SP 8162 identification on cylinder located in inside package\nPage 2 of 3\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nScenario 2: A cylinder used as a fire extinguisher, manufactured under DOT-SP 7945 or DOT-SP 8495 and marked with\none of these special permit numbers, is packaged in an outer fiberboard box. The cylinder has no HAZMAT markings or\nlabels applied to it, but the outer package is marked with UN1044 Fire Extinguishers, the shipper and consignee address,\nthe DOT-SP number, and displays a 2.2 Hazard Label.\nQuestion 1: As asked in Scenario 1, would this represent an overpack or would it be just a combination package and\nwould the marking and labeling requirements be sufficient to transport this package? It is my understanding as in the first\nscenario that this would be a combination package and the proper marks and labels are applied.\nIf you have any questions regarding my scenarios and questions, please contact me.\nThank you for your help in this matter.\nJeff Christafore\nDangerous Goods Compliance Specialist\nBombardier Aerospace\n2400 Aviation Way\nBridgeport, WV 26330\nOffice: 304-848-5202\nMobile: 304-975-4229\nE-mail: jeff.christafore@aero.bombardier.com\nPage 3 of 3","truncated":false,"body_characters":9981}