{"operation":"document","citation":"16-0055","title":"AZKO Nobel Services, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2016-09-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"16-0055 response to AZKO Nobel Services, Inc. concerning 172.301, 172.304, 172.322, 172.406, 172.407.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0055.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0055.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0055","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/160055.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMaterials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous\nAdministration\nSEP 2 9 2016\nMr. Mark Connolly\nManager-Transportation Regulations and Security\nAkzo Nobel Services, Inc.\n525 W. Van Buren Street\nChicago, IL 60607-3823\nRet. No.: 16-0055\nDear Mr. Connolly:\nThis responds to your March 30, 2016 email regarding reduced size labels and markings\nunder the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you\nseek confirmation that reduced size labels and markings are authorized for the packagings\ndescribed in your scenario. In your incoming email, you note that your company is examining\nuse of new small single packagings for transport of various organic peroxides for both\ndomestic and international transport. In order to: (1) avoid the entanglement of tags\ncontaining standard size labels and markings during the automated package filling process;\n(2) allow stacking of packages without risk of labels or markings being pulled away from the\npackage; and (3) ensure that all required labels and markings fit on the same side of the\npackage, the reduced size labels and/or markings would be necessary. Your questions are\nparaphrased and answered as follows.\nQ1. You provided a photograph for a 20 liter capacity specification package affixed with\nstandard 100 × 100 mm hazard labels and marine pollutant mark along with the identification\nnumber and proper shipping name marked in accordance with the non-bulk 12 mm height\nrequirement. You note that the hazard labels and marine pollutant mark must be bent over\ncorners of the package in an attempt to fit them all on the same side with the identification\nnumber and proper shipping name. You also provided an illustration of the same package\nwith reduced size 50 × 50 mm hazard labels and marine pollutant mark and ask if this is\nacceptable.\nAl. In accordance with § 172.406(a)(1)(ii), labels must \"[b]e located on the same surface of\nthe package and near the proper shipping name marking, if the package dimensions are\nadequate.\" The dimensions of the package in your scenario do not appear to adequately\nprovide space for all of the relevant labels and markings, therefore the requirement that they\nare all placed on the same side would not apply. Based on the example provided, it appears\nthat standard size hazard labels and markings could be placed on different sides of the\npackage and that reduced size labels and markings would not be necessary. In addition, in\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\naccordance with § 172.301(a)(1), for packages with a maximum capacity of 30 liters or less,\nthe identification number may be reduced from 12 mm to 6mm high.\nQ2. You describe a smaller 6.5 liter specification package without a photograph and ask if\nreduced size 50 × 50 mm hazard labels and marine pollutant mark would be acceptable.\nA2. See A1. If the dimensions of the package permit, standard size hazard labels and\nmarkings may be placed on different sides of the package. However, if the dimensions of the\nsmaller 6.5 liter package cannot accommodate standard size labels and markings, it is the\nopinion of this Office that, to the extent necessary to prevent the labels and markings from\nbeing bent around the package corners and to accommodate the automated filling and\nsubsequent stacking, the size of the labels and marking may be reduced. Based on the\nIllustrations of the packages you provided, these packages would still satisfy the intent of the\nreduced size label provisions in § 172.407(c)(1)(1), the marine pollutant mark of\n§ 172.322(e)(2)(i) (A) and the marking requirements of 8 172.304 of the HMR.\nQ3. When reducing hazard labels and the marine pollutant mark, must the size of all three be\nthe same, such as 50mm × 50mm on each side?\nA3. The answer is no. There is no requirement that all of the reduced size labels or marks\ndisplayed on the package must be equally reduced in size provided the symbol and other\nelements of the label and mark remain clearly visible.\nQ4. Can the primary hazard label remain at a size of 100 mm × 100 mm while the subsidiary\nhazard label and marine pollutant mark are reduced to 50 mm x 50 mm?\nA4. The answer is yes. There is no requirement that all of the reduced size labels or marks\ndisplayed on the package must be the same size provided the symbol and other elements of\nthe label and mark remain clearly visible.\nQ5. What is the minimum size of the reduced size labels and marine pollutant marking?\nAS. A minimum size for reduced size labels is not prescribed. In accordance with\n§ 172.407(c)(1)(i), if the size of the package so requires, the dimensions of the label and its\nfeatures may be reduced provided the symbol and other elements of the label remain clearly\nvisible. For non-bulk packages required to display the marine pollutant mark, a minimum\nsize is not specified; however, in accordance with § 172.322(e)(2)(i)(A) \"Ti]f the size of the\npackage so requires, the dimensions/line thickness may be reduced, provided the marking\nremains clearly visible and all features shall be in approximate proportion to those shown\" in\nthe image of the marine pollutant mark in § 172.322(e)(1).\nQ6. You state that your package has an indented center band which is approximately 4 inches\nin height across the middle of the package side. Your marketing department would prefer to\nenhance the \"look\" of the package by reducing the size of all transport labels and markings to\nfit into the 4 inch center band. It is your understanding that this would be a violation of the\nHMR.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nA6. Your understanding is correct, reduced size labels and markings may only be used if the\nsize of the package so requires and not for aesthetic reasons (see §§ 172.407(c)(1)(i) and\n172.322(e) (2)(i)(A).\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact this office.\nSincerely,\n2am A RA\nInternational Standards Coordinator\nDuane A. Pfund\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nWiener\n$172407(30)\nnaune Pollutan\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\n16-0055\nFrom:\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nSent:\nThursday, March 31, 2016 7:09 AM\nTo:\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nSubject:\nFW: DOT Clarification for Acceptable Reduction of Transport Hazard Labels and Marine\nPollutant Marks on Small UN specification Single Packages of Organic Peroxides for\nDomestic and International Transport\nAttachments:\nimage005.emz; image003.emz\nImportance:\nHigh\nFrom: Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nTo: Hazmat Interps\nSent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:25 PM\nSubject: FW: DOT Clarification for Acceptable Reduction of Transport Hazard Labels and Marine Pollutant Marks on Small\nImportance: High\nUN specification Single Packages of Organic Peroxides for Domestic and International Transport\nPlease log and assign for response.\nFrom: Connolly, M (Mark) [mailto:Mark.Connolly@AkzoNobel.com]\nSent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:19 PM\nSubject: DOT Clarification for Acceptable Reduction of Transport Hazard Labels and Marine Pollutant Marks on Small UN\nTo: Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nImportance: High\nspecification Single Packages of Organic Peroxides for Domestic and International Transport\nHi Charlie,\nOur company is examining the use of some new small single packages for the transport of various organic\nperoxides.\nAs an ongoing evaluation for reduction of packaging costs we've obtained some new UN specification designs\nwhich have passed the various UN performance testing and are much smaller than our current packages. The\nsignificant cost reduction (eliminating outer fiberboard box) will enable AkzoNobel to remain competitive in the\nglobal marketplace.\nPer our discussions a few months ago - below is the email in which we need clarification concerning reduction\nof hazard labels and marine pollutant markings on small single nonbulk packages. Let me know what\nadditional information you need - I've requested some labels from Labelmaster - unfortunately Labelmaster\nand other label suppliers do not typically print reduced size hazard labels - we must specific and special order\non a case by case basis.\nApplying tags which contain the hazard label(s) and transportation markings in the usual size is not viable as\nthe packages are filled via an automation system and the tags may entangle during filling\noperations. Packages are also stacked upon each other for pallet unit loads and these actions may damage or\naccidentally rip a tag away from the package. Our desire is to affix strong self-adhesive labels which remain\naffixed in ambient and reduced temperatures to as low as - 20C.\nThese new smaller packages will require the transportation hazard labels and Marine pollutant mark (if\napplicable) to be reduced as they and the appropriate transport markings cannot fit on one side of the package\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nin compliance with DOT [49CFR172.407(c)(i); and 172.3229 (e)(2)(i)(A)] and IMDG [5.2.2.2.1.1.3; 5.2.1.6.3\nnote 1] transportation regulations and UN Recommendations [5.2.2.2.1.1.2, 5.2.2.2.1.1.3 and 5.2.1.6.3 note 1] .\nNote although the dimension of each hazard label is reduced there will be no reduction in the division number,\nhazard class number or 2 mm width of the external black line.\nAkzoNobel is concerned that for transport of hazardous materials within the U.S. the reduction of transport\nhazard labels is not a regular occurrence on packages other than cylinders. Also, since these filled packages\nwill be transported domestically and internationally - such changes may result in shipment frustration by carrier\nwhich included specific examples of acceptable reduced hazard labels.\npersonnel. A review was made of the DOT interpretation letters and I could not locate any correspondence\nYour review and feedback is appreciated for the examples noted below:\nExample 1\n20 liter capacity UN specification package prepared for transport by road and vessel for export (Width of side\nof package approximately 10 inches)\nTransport classification for this shipment:\nPOLLUTANT\nUN3109, ORGANIC PEROXIDE TYPE F, LIQUID (TERT BUTYL HYDROPEROXIDE70%), 5.2 (8), MARINE\nPackage Transport marking\nand Hazard labels:\nsides (not shown in this picture)\non two adjacent opposing\nvented cap)\nUN3109,\n5.2, (8), marine pollutant mark\norientation arrows (due to use of\nORGANIC PEROXIDE TYPE F, LIQUID\n(TERT BUTYL HYDROPEROXIDE70%),\nIn order to be in compliance with both DOT and IMDG transport regulations it is my understanding that the\ntransportation markings (UN number, PSN (technical name), RQ, etc. and hazard labels must be shown on the\nsame side of the package. If the dimensions of the package do not allow the hazard labels to be\n100mmx100mm on side they can be reduced in size as note in the various reference noted above.\nBelow one left is a photo of the described package with 100mmx100mm hazard labels UN3109 in 12mm\nheight and marine pollutant marking adjacent to UN# and PSN (technical name) which is also the name of the\nmarine pollutant. Note that the hazard labels actually must bend over corners in attempt to fit on one side of\nthe package.\n50mmx50mm in size\nOn right is an example of the same package with hazard labels and marine pollutant marked reduced to\n!\nCurrent package Design with 100mmx100mm hazard labels and MP mark\nProposed same\npackage size with 50mmx50mm hazard labels and MP mark\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nORGANIC PEROXIOS\n5.2\nCORROSIVE\nUN3109\n8\n5.2\n8\nUN3109\nORGANIC PEROXIDE TYPE F, LIQUID\n(TERT BUTYL HYDROPEROXIDE70%),\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n• When reducing hazard labels and marine pollutant marking - Must size of all three by symmetrical (i.e.\n50mmx50mm on side)?\n• Can the primary remain at 100mmx100mm and the subsidiary and marine pollutant be reduced to\n50mmx50mm?\n• Is there any limit to the reduction?\nPoint of clarification- The package has an indented centerband which is approximately 4 inches in\nheight across the center of the face of the side of the package facing the camera. Our marketing\ndepartment would prefer to enhance \"look\" of packaging by reducing the size of all transport hazard\nlabels to fit into that 4 inch high centerband area. It is my understanding this would be a violation of\nDOT regulations as DOT specifies that hazard label reduction can only be made if the entire side of the\npackage is too small for the hazard labels to fit.\nPlease clarify if you agree with this interpretation.\nBelow is an example of a package with hazard labels reduced to fit into 4 inch \"centerband\"\nExample of hazard labels reduced to fit in \"centerband\"\n15.\n8\nUN3109\nORGANIC PEROXIDE TYPE F, LIQUID\n(TERT BUTYL HYDROPEROXIDE70%).\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nExample 2\n6.5 Liter capacity UN specification single package with dimensions noted below\nLength\n234mm + 2 mm (9.21 inches)\nWidth\n198mm +2mm (7.8 inches)\nHeight\n218 mm + 3 (stacking: 218 mm) (8.58 inches)\nThe same questions that applied in example 1 toward reduction of the hazard labels apply to this example 2 of\na package which is much smaller than the 20 L package.\nLet me know if you need additional information or want to discuss further and I can make changes to the\ncorrespondence for use as a clarification letter for future use.\nI'll call you later this week.\nMark\nRegards,\nMark Connolly\nManager-Transportation Regulations and Security\nGlobal Shared Services\nHSE Americas\nAkzo Nobel Services Inc.\nF +1-312-544-7087\nT+1-312-544-7177\nE mark.connolly@akzonobel.com\nM +1-847-778-7335\nAkzoNobel fo\nThe information contained in this message, including any attachments, may be privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the\nindividual and/or entity identified in the address of this message. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete and destroy this\nfrom the EU, Croatia, Norway, Turkey, Ukraine or Switzerland\nmessage, including any back-up copies. Please refer to www.akzonobel.com/legal-entities for further legal information regarding the sending entity if","truncated":false,"body_characters":13895}