{"operation":"document","citation":"15-0171","title":"AECOM — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2016-08-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"15-0171 response to AECOM concerning 173.185, 173.25.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0171.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0171.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0171","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/150171.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nAUG 1 1 2016\nMr. Andrew N. Romach\nRegulatory Compliance Manager\nAECOM\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nRef. No.: 15-0171\nDear Mr. Romach:\nThis is in response to your letter dated August 3, 2015 and subsequent phone call with a member\nof my staff requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n171-180) relating to lithium battery provisions in § 173.185. You state that you have a single\nlithium metal battery contained in equipment. This single lithium metal battery contained in\nequipment has a lithium content of not more than 2 grams and the lithium metal content does not\nexceed 5 kg net weight. The equipment is then placed in an outer product box that meets the\ncriteria for a strong outer packaging and all of the applicable packaging provisions in\n§ 173.185(c). You further state the product box would be consolidated with other product boxes\nand placed into one larger box. You ask for confirmation that the product box as well as the\noverpack would require no hazard communication marks or labels based on the scenario you\nhave provided.\nYour understanding is correct. For the packages and overpack you describe there is no\nrequirement to mark or label the outer package or overpack. The package is not required to\ndisplay the markings specified in §§ 173.185(c)(1)(iii) and 173.185(c)(3). The package would\nalso be excepted from labeling per § 173.185(c). In accordance with § 173.25(a)(4), the\noverpack marking would not be required, as specification packagings are not required.\nI trust this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact\nthis office.\nSincerely,\nDuaneAt\nYe\nDuane A. Pfund\nInternational Standards Coordinator\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nWebb\n173.185\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nAuthium Batteries\nFrom:\nGeller, Shelby CTR (PHMSA)\n15 - 0171\nSent:\nTo:\nMonday, August 17, 2015 4:42 PM\nHazmat Interps\nSubject:\nFW: Request for written DOT interpretatior\nAttachments:\nDOT interpr li battery label transport doc 08032015.pdf\nDear Shante and Alice,\nI wanted to follow up with Ms Norris' request for a letter of interpretation, as I did not see it in the database.\nThanks,\nShelby\nFrom: Geller, Shelby CTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Hazmat Interps\nSent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 12:21 PM\nSubject: FW: Request for written DOT interpretation\nDear Shante and Alice,\nAttached is a request for a formal letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nShelby\nFrom: Norris, Carolyn [mailto:carolyn.norris@aecom.com]\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter\nSent: Monday, August 03, 2015 4:09 PM\nCc: Romach, Andy\nSubject: Request for written DOT interpretation\nDear Infocenter,\nI have attached a request for a written DOT interpretation. Please let me know if you have any questions.\nThank you in advance for your assistance.\nThanks,\nSenior Project Scientist/Project Manager, EHS Department\nCarolyn Norris, DGSA\nCarolyn.norris@aecom.com\nD 1-919-461-1238 F 1-919-461-1371\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400, Morrisville, North Carolina 27560\nAECOM\nT 1-919-461-1100 F 1-919-461-1400\nwww.aecom.com\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nAECOM\nAECOM\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\n919.461.1100 tel\nMorrisville. NG 27560\nSuite 400\n919.461.1415 fax\nAugust 3, 2015\nMr. Charles Betts, Division Director\nStandards and Rulemaking (PHH-10)\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Betts:\nI am writing to request a Department of Transportation (DOT) written interpretation concerning the\napplicability of the lithium battery marking and documentation requirements set out in the recently\nrevised section \"Exceptions for smaller cells or batteries\" 49 CFR 173.185(c) for lithium batteries\ncontained in equipment. Specifically, we would like to ship one lithium battery (larger than a coin cell)\nthat meets the exception criteria in 49 CFR 173.185(c) and is contained in a piece of equipment as\nallowed in 49 CFR 173.185(c)(3). This piece of equipment is packaged in its own product box.\nThe product box meets the criteria for strong outer packaging as set out in Subchapter B; and the package\nmeets all of the applicable requirements of the exception in 49 CFR 173.185(c), including the referenced\nparts of 49 CFR 173.185(b).\nThis product box would not be offered into transportation on its own due to handling constraints: The\nproduct box will be purchased by the customer, so the outer packaging has advertisements and artwork\nthat we would like to protect so that it is not scuffed in transport.\nWould this package (equipment in this product box) meet the exception from the lithium battery package\nmarkings and transport document set out in 49 CFR 173.185(c)(3)? Multiple product boxes such as this\n(for example, 50 product boxes) would be packaged together in one larger box for consolidation, which\nfunctions as an overpack.\nAs set out in 49 CFR 173.25(a)(4), the overpack marking is required only if the overpack contains UN\nspecification packages; therefore, no \"OVERPACK\" marking would be required on the outside of the\noverpack.\nPlease provide written clarification that no DOT package marking and labels would be required on either\nthe individual product boxes or the overpack in the above-described scenario. I appreciate your assistance\nwith this question.\nSincerely,\nAndrew N. Romach\nRegulatory Compliance Manager\nAECOM","truncated":false,"body_characters":5555}