{"operation":"document","citation":"24-0092","title":"Labelmaster Services Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2025-04-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"24-0092 response to Labelmaster Services Inc. concerning 173.150, 173.25.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0092.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0092.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0092","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2026-01/240092.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nApril 29, 2025\nErin Gaul\nSenior Consultant\nLabelmaster Services Inc.\n5724 North Pulaski Rd\nChicago, IL 60646\nReference No. 24-0092\nDear Ms. Gaul:\nThis letter is in response to your October 1, 2024, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to limited quantity shipments.\nIn your email, you state that retailers request that distribution centers ship consumer products\nunder the limited quantity exceptions for flammable liquids in 49 CFR § 173.150(b). You note\nthat these products—such as bottles of cologne—are placed into a corrugated retail packaging,\nwhich is then placed into a plastic poly bag.\nDoes the packaging—as pictured in your email—meet the requirements in 49 CFR § 173.150(b),\nwhich requires that limited quantities of flammable liquids be packaged in combination\npackagings with a strong outer packaging? Is it true that limited quantities shipped in\naccordance with 49 CFR § 173.150(b) may not use plastic poly bags as the outer packaging?\nBased on the pictures and descriptions provided in your email, it is the opinion of this Office that\nthe plastic poly bags would not qualify as a strong outer packaging as required in 49 CFR\n§ 173.150(b). Section 171.8 defines a strong outer packaging as “the outermost enclosure that\nprovides protection against the unintentional release of its contents. It is a packaging that is\nsturdy, durable, and constructed so that it will retain its contents under normal conditions of\ntransportation.” The plastic poly bags as shown in your email, do not appear to meet this\ndefinition.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nHowever, please note that we cannot determine if the corrugated retail packaging described in\nyour email may itself meet the definition of a strong outer packaging—that must be determined\nby the offeror. If the corrugated retail packaging meets all the applicable HMR requirements and\nis considered the strong outer packaging, the plastic poly bag could be used as an overpack\nprovided it meets the requirements in 49 CFR § 173.25.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nLarson\n24-0092\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nCc: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: LOI for Sturdy packaging\nDate: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 4:12:58 PM\nAttachments: image002.png\nimage003.png\nimage004.png\nimage005.png\nimage006.png\nimage007.png\nimage008.png\nimage009.png\nHello Alice,\nPlease see the below interpretation request. Let us know if you need anything.\nSincerely,\nJanaye\nFrom: Erin Gaul <EGaul@labelmaster.com>\nSent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 10:21 AM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nCc: Cardez, Eugenio (PHMSA) <Eugenio.cardez@dot.gov>\nSubject: LOI for Sturdy packaging\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.\nGood day.\nI am looking for a letter of interpretation for sturdy packaging as it applies to limited quantities\nin ecommerce. Essentially in a nutshell a “box” vs. a “bag” as it applies to the “package\noffered into transportation”\nVery often retailers request distribution houses to place limited quantity products directly into\nplastic poly bags without sufficient protection around the glass, plastic, or ceramic vessel.\nEven if the primary bottle is surrounded by a flimsy retail package, placing that into a plastic\npoly bag will not endure the riggers of rough ecommerce transportation.\nWhile the various glass bottles of cologne (and other flammable liquids) are placed inside a\ncorrugated primary consumer packaging, and for the same reason you would simply just not\nship the box of cologne with a consignment label on it (other than customer dissatisfaction as\nto how it ‘looks’) that first box does not provide enough protection for the glass vessel that\ncontains flammable liquid. Consumer retail packaging quality varies among manufacturers\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nand with no consistent quality management system in place for all manufactures (globally)\none may produce a firm shell around the bottle, and other’s will not. There is no consistency\nbetween manufacturers.\nTransportation through eCommerce chain of custody routes can be rigorous. Their lightweight\nnature will cause handlers to throw them from sorting conveyance to floor to truck several\ntimes before making it to the package’s final destination.\n49CFR is clear in 173.150 that while UN Spec. packaging is not required, materials must be\noffered for transportation in strong outer packaging that complies with Subpart B and in\ncombination packages.\nAdditionally, we must conform with 173.24a (1) Inner packaging closures in a combination\npackage containing liquid hazardous materials must be packed so that closures on inner\npackagings are upright. Also, we see in (3) Inner packagings of combination packages must be\nso packed, secured, and cushioned to prevent their breakage or leakage and to control their\nshifting within the outer packaging under conditions normal to transportation.\nUnfortunately, the poly mailer does not provide sufficient protection as prescribed in the\ngeneral requirements of Subpart B nor in 173.24a.\nFurther consideration,\nThe definition in 49 CFR 171.8 clearly states that a strong outer packaging must be “sturdy.” That,\non its face, rationally excludes a soft outer packaging. A soft outer package cannot meet that\nrequirement. Just because the regulations do not specifically say “You can’t use a soft outer\npackage” doesn’t mean that they are permitted. The regulations (49 CFR 173.150 et al) stipulate\n“strong outer packaging.” A strong outer package, per 49 CFR 171.8, must be sturdy (among other\nrequirements). Any soft packagings are, on their face, not sturdy, and thus non-compliant.\nA simple thought experiment reinforces this. Imagine a scenario in which a warehouse employee\naccidentally steps on the proposed “plastic poly envelope package” in question. Will a plastic poly\nenvelope resist crushing and the resultant escape of the package’s contents from their inner\ncontainer? The answer is obviously “no.” Will a non-specification fiberboard box resist such crushing,\nat least to the point of protecting the contents? The answer is “very probably.”\nThe regulations are written from the assumption that stakeholders will use them in a manner that\nlogically reflects the requirements of their contents. In other words, the regulators wrote them from\nthe perspective that people will exercise common sense in their execution. Making an assumption\nthat a soft outer package can be considered “sturdy” when that is obviously not the case\ncontravenes common sense and is therefore non-compliant in this scenario.\nIf Postal injection methods are utilized ( post office delivers in final mile) the package must\nALSO comply with Publication 52 which even more strict. Packages must be leakproof even by\nground. Again, the package presented would fail this qualification.\nAnother note, from past experience, any poly bag that displays the LQ diamond will definitely\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\ndraw unwanted attention from the carriers and regulators who frequent the carrier terminals\nlooking for nonconformant packages.\nThe distribution center does not feel utilizing a poly bag is sufficient protection, will be found at\nfault for offering a flammable liquid in LQ (or other LQ item) in deficient packaging (non-sturdy)\nwhen the product breaks and leaks in transport. It is for this reason they need your help in\ndefending their decision to utilize a non UN Spec. box for all liquids in Limited Quantities\nthroughout their ecommerce divisions. The retailers want to cut costs by utilizing a poly bag\nvs. a box.\nPictures below show a bottle inside a fluted insert within a thin retail package. Please\nunderstand, some manufacturers may not utilize a fluted insert around the bottle. Process\nmanagement in large ecommerce warehouses do not take into account ‘some’ retail\npackages are better than others. Letting the packer decide to utilize a box or a bag is a terrible\noption as they ship 100,000 ++ packages a day and the WMS must either point the packer to\nuse a bag or a box.\nPictures of below:\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nWar sandawood, sweet\nmingle for a one-of-a-kind\npraine and bergamot\nfragrance as unexpected\nas a four leal clover.\nATTENTION: INFLAMMABLE\nCAUTION: FLAMMABLE\nSPRAYING IN ETES, NE PAS UTLISER PRES\nDO NOT USE NEAR HEAT OR FLAME AVOID\nFEULEVITER TOUT CONTACT AVEC LES YEUX.\nD'UNE SOURCE DE CHALEUR OU DE\nIngredients/Ingridents: Acchol Decut\nEnyherl Methonomanale, Enyherl\nFragrance (Partue), Water (AquENL))\nApte-Bomethy/inone, Oronelel, Couramn\nSalcylan, Bute Mehaydbensymehang\n(rosene, Linaico, Bue 1 (C. 42090), Be. Violet\nDier Bytes maurces Quut, MN 55802\n2(0 60730, Vulow Yulow (C 19140)\nMade in USA/Fabrique suk Etar Uhis\nToronto, ON MSH 214\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nPlease explain my next steps or if you need more information.\nWe are asking for support in utilizing a box vs. a poly bag for these shipments.\nErin Gaul\nDGSA, CDGP\nSr. Consultant Labelmaster Services Inc.\nOn behalf of Geodis, Americas / Warehousing & Freight Forwarding\n429 Firestone St.\nFreeburg, IL 62243\nErin Gaul, Senior Consultant , DGSA, CDGP\nO: 618-304-7114 F: 866.599.9936\n5724 North Pulaski Road, Chicago, IL 60646\nEGaul@labelmaster.com\nCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:\nThis e-mail contains privileged and confidential information. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender\n(by hitting the reply button above) since disclosing, copying, distributing, or using the information contained is strictly\nprohibited.\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nThis email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.\nFor more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":10156}