{"operation":"document","citation":"24-0010R","title":"AMETEK AMERON — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2025-01-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"24-0010R response to AMETEK AMERON concerning 171.8, 173.25, 173.301.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0010r.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0010r.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0010r","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2025-01/240010R.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nJanuary 3, 2025\nMr. Patrick Schoenhoff\nGeneral Manager\nAMETEK AMERON\n10271 Bach Boulevard\nSaint Louis, MO 63132\nReference No. 24-0010R\nDear Mr. Schoenhoff:\nThis letter is in response to your February 20, 2024, letter requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the overpack\nmarking requirements in § 173.25 as they relate to cylinders. PHMSA is revising this letter to\nclarify that certain DOT specification cylinders require a strong outer package under\n§ 173.301(a)(9) and therefore are not an overpack as defined in § 171.8. This response replaces\nLetter of Interpretation Ref. No. 24-0010.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. You present a scenario where oxygen is shipped in Department of Transportation (DOT)\n3AA or 3HT specification cylinders, placed in a fiberboard box, and marked “UN1072,\nOxygen, Compressed.” You ask whether the fiberboard box must be marked\n“OVERPACK” as described in § 173.25(a)(4).\nA1. When offered for transportation in 3AA specification cylinders which are further\npackaged in a fiberboard box—the configuration meets the definition of an overpack, as\ndefined in § 171.8—and, if the specification markings on the cylinders are not visible\nthrough the overpack, the fiberboard box must be marked “OVERPACK” as prescribed\nin § 173.25(a)(4). When offered for transportation in 3HT specification cylinders, the\nfiberboard box may not be marked “OVERPACK.” Specification 3HT cylinders are\nrequired under § 173.301(a)(9) to be packaged in a “strong outer packaging,” which is\nnot an overpack.\nQ2. In connection to question Q1, you ask whether it is a violation of the HMR to mark a\nfiberboard box with “OVERPACK” if it does not meet the definition of an overpack as\ndefined in § 171.8.\nA2. The answer is yes. Marking a fiberboard box with “OVERPACK” is a violation of the\nHMR if it does not meet the definition of an overpack as defined in § 171.8.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3. You present a scenario where fire extinguishers are shipped under DOT Special Permits\n(SPs)—DOT SP-7945,\n1 DOT SP-8495,\n2 and DOT SP-127263\n—and marked “UN1044,\nFire Extinguishers.” You ask whether the “OVERPACK” mark is required on the\nfiberboard box containing fire extinguisher cylinders shipped under DOT SP-7945,\nDOT SP-8495, and DOT SP-12726.\nA3. Except when transported in DOT specification cylinders not specifically listed in\n§ 173.301(a)(9), the answer is no. The SPs referenced in your letter authorize certain non-\nspecification cylinders which—under the terms of the special permits—must be\ntransported in “strong outer packaging.” In this configuration, the outer fiberboard box is\nnot an overpack.\nQ4. In connection to question Q3, you ask whether it is a violation of the HMR to mark a\nfiberboard box with “OVERPACK” if it does not meet the definition of an overpack as\ndefined in § 171.8.\nA4. See answer A2. When the SP requires the use of a strong outer packaging—as in DOT-\nSP 7945 paragraph 8.g. or DOT-SP 8495 paragraph 8.g.—the outer packaging does not\nmeet the definition of an overpack, and therefore, “OVERPACK” is not an appropriate\nmarking. In addition, paragraph 7.a. of DOT-SP 12726 states in part: \"complied with the\nprovisions of the applicable special permits.\" Cylinders under DOT-SP 7945 and DOT-\nSP 8495 authorized under DOT-SP 12726 must comply with DOT-SP 7945 and DOT-SP\n8495, as applicable. When shipped under DOT-SP 12726, cylinders authorized under\nDOT-SP 7945 or DOT-SP 8495 must be packed in strong outer packaging and may not\nbe marked \"OVERPACK\".\nAlso note, DOT-SP 12726 paragraph 7.a. authorizes the use of both non-DOT\nspecification cylinders and DOT specification cylinders, and—when DOT specification\ncylinders not specifically listed in § 173.301(a)(9) are used—the “OVERPACK” marking\nis required unless the markings representative of each package type contained in the\noverpack are visible from outside of the overpack.\nFinally, it should be noted that additional requirements such as cylinder valve protection,\nmay also be required under the terms of the SP or the HMR even when “OVERPACK” is\nnot required or authorized.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nSteven Andrews\nActing Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n1 https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/documents/offer/SP7945.pdf/2022024177/SP7945\n2 https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/documents/offer/SP8495.pdf/2021114098/SP8495\n3 https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/documents/offer/SP12726.pdf/2020064323/SP12726\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nPollack\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nCc: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Overpack Interpretation Request\nDate: Friday, February 23, 2024 2:13:21 PM\nAttachments: image001.png\nimage002.png\nimage003.png\nOverpack Clarification Request.pdf\n24-0010\nHi Alice,\nPlease see the attached interpretation request. Let us know if you need anything.\nSincerely,\nJanaye\nFrom: Patrick Schoenhoff <patrick.schoenhoff@ametek.com>\nSent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 2:23 PM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter <PHMSAHMInfoCenter@dot.gov>\nSubject: Overpack Interpretation Request\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do\nnot click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content\nis safe.\nHello,\nPlease see the attached request for Interpretation of the use of Overpack labels on packages\ncontaining charged cylinders.\nFeel free to contact me with any questions you have with this request.\nBest regards,\nPatrick Schoenhoff\nTechnical Director / General Manager\nD: +1 314 428 2062 x1077 | 10271 Bach Boulevard\nSaint Louis, MO 63132\nwww.ameronglobal.com\nO: +1 314 428 2062 | E: patrick.schoenhoff@ametek.com\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nThis email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are\naddressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient,\nyou are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information, is strictly\nprohibited.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nAMERON\n10271 BACH BOULEVARD\nSAINT LOUIS. MO 63132\n314-428-2062 PH\nFebruary 20, 2024\nMr. Shane Kelley\nDirector, Standards and Rulemaking Division\nU.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-10)\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. Kelley,\nI am requesting a Letter of Interpretation for the Overpack labeling of packages in\nthe following scenarios.\nScenario 1: An Oxygen Cylinder with a DOT rating of either 3AA or 3HT is packaged\nin a fiberboard box. The box is marked with UN1072 Oxygen, Compressed labels.\nQuestion 1: Does the above packaging constitute being labeled as an “Overpack”?\nQuestion 2: If not meeting the definition or requirement of an “Overpack”, is marking\nthe box as an Overpack a violation of the regulations?\nScenario 2: A Fire Extinguisher Cylinder with a DOT SP rating of SP-8495 or SP-\n7945 is packaged in a fiberboard box. The box is marked with UN1044, Fire\nExtinguishers SP-12726 labels and then shipped per SP-12726 (of which we hold\nParty Status).\nQuestion 3: Does the above packaging constitute being labeled as an “Overpack”\nwith an SP cylinder?\nQuestion 4: If not meeting the definition or requirement of an “Overpack”, is marking\nthe box as an Overpack a violation of the regulations?\nThank you for your help on this matter, and feel free to contact me if you have any\nquestions regarding these scenarios.\nBest Regards,\nPatrick Schoenhoff\nGeneral Manager\nAMETEK AMERON\n10271 Bach Boulevard\nSaint Louis, MO 63132\n314-428-2062 X1077\nE-mail: patrick.schoenhoff@ametek.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":7913}