# B Way Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

**Citation:** 01-0052  
**Type / status:** guidance / guidance  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2001-02-28

01-0052 response to B Way Corporation concerning 178.603.

## Document text

<<<PAGE 1>>>

or ansporation
400 Seventh St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
research and
Administration
pecial Program
FEB 2 8 2001
Mr. Erik Martinsen
Ref. No: 01-0052
Technical Service Engineer
B Way Corporation
P.O. Box 336
Homerville, GA 31634
Dear Mr. Martinsen:
This is in response to your February 15, 2001 letter requesting clarification on the package testing
requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically
you ask whether it is necessary to physically vent a packaging to reach equilibrium after performing
the drop test prescribed in § 178.603.
The answer is no. It is not necessary to physically vent a packaging to reach equilibrium. However,
before it can be ascertained whether the packaging passed or failed the drop test the packaging must
reach equilibrium (see § 178.603(Đ)(1)).
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
for John A. Gale
Transportation Regulations Specialist
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
010052

<<<PAGE 2>>>

B'way Corporation
February 15, 2001
Lavalle
Jeff Furr
US DOT
fax: (202) 3663012
$178.603
re: UN/POP Drop Test Procedure
Testing
Dear Mr. Furr:
01-0052
As we discussed on the telephone, attached is a letter of interpretation from RSP A to
Cleveland Steel Container Corp. dated August 24, 1993. The letter was found at
Labelmaster Corporation's 49Online website in the DOT Letters of Interpretation section.
Question and answer two are about the criteria for passing the UN/POP drop test as
specified in 49CFR 178.603(f)(1). The answer states that after the drop test is done "it is
not necessary to physically vent packaging to achieve equilibrium." We understand this
to mean that after the drop test the package must be inspected. If there is no sign of
leakage the package is deemed to have passed the drop test.
This interpretation appears to be reasonable to us since we understand that the UN/POP
drop test is intended to simulate what would happen in a real world shipping
environment. In that context we believe the package would not be vented after being
dropped, but would continue enroute to it's ultimate customer in this dented but non-
leaking state. Is this a current and accurate interpretation?
Your help will be appreciated in resolving this matter for us so that we can provide the
most cost-effective packaging for our customers while complying with the letter and
intent of 49CFR.
Erik Martingen
Technical Service Engineer
attachment: CSC Corp. Letter Dated 3/16/93
US DOT Response Dated 8/24/93
HIGHWAY 84 WEST - P.O. BOX 336 - HOMERVILLE, GEORGIA 31634 - TEL. 912 487 4000 - FAX 912 487 4010
Drop Test Reg Jeff Fur 2-15.01. doo

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2001/010052.pdf>
- Source ID: `phmsa`
- SHA-256: `f9088530d62cbade673e91effd59735bdea82afd1b701d212c95ad33c1a0af54`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T00:59:31.977Z
- Exported: 2026-08-22T06:26:46.592Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-interpretation-01-0052`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "materialSubtype": "interpretation",
  "interpretationArea": "hazardous_materials",
  "representation": "full_text_from_official_pdf",
  "companies": [
    "B Way Corporation"
  ],
  "individuals": [
    "Mr. Erik Martinsen"
  ],
  "refIds": [
    "01-0052"
  ],
  "catalogDates": [
    "2001-02-28"
  ],
  "catalogParts": [
    178
  ],
  "catalogRowCount": 1,
  "sourceRecordUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/46841"
  ],
  "linkedAttachmentUrls": [],
  "unavailableResponseUrls": [],
  "duplicateRepresentationUrls": [],
  "citedSections": [
    "178.603"
  ],
  "catalogPageUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/178603"
  ],
  "pdfUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2001/010052.pdf"
  ],
  "representations": [
    {
      "viewUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2001/010052.pdf",
      "detailUrl": null,
      "detailHtmlPath": null,
      "pdfUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2001/010052.pdf",
      "pdfArtifactPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/01-0052-7bdd458f53.pdf",
      "pdfArtifactSha256": "b7a52c57745afda0556b9bb8a20cb44025625f712fe68c86f4af2866a9a1e8a4",
      "extractedTextPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/01-0052-7bdd458f53.v2.txt",
      "extractedTextSha256": "f7ba9071cf9b6c510016a33cc784116c14de097533e06f114c1c20d005d67248",
      "pageCount": 2,
      "extractionVersion": 2
    }
  ],
  "caveat": "Interpretations apply regulations to the facts presented and do not create independently enforceable requirements.",
  "jurisdiction": "US"
}
```