# Department of the Army, Army Sustainment Command (ASC) ASC Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center Logistics, Testing, and Applications Division — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

**Citation:** 21-0040  
**Type / status:** guidance / guidance  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2021-08-18

21-0040 response to Department of the Army, Army Sustainment Command (ASC) ASC Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center Logistics, Testing, and Applications Division concerning 178.601, 178.603.

## Document text

<<<PAGE 1>>>

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
August 18, 2021
Mr. Ryan Roberts
Department of the Army, Army Sustainment Command (ASC)
ASC Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center
Logistics, Testing, and Applications Division
11 Hap Arnold Blvd.
Bldg. 2, Bay 5
Tobyhanna, PA 18466
Reference No. 21-0040
Dear Mr. Roberts:
This letter is in response to your April 14, 2021, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the testing of non-bulk
packagings and packages. Specifically, you seek clarification regarding the requirements for
Variation 2 combination packagings in § 178.601(g)(2) and the criteria for passing the drop test
outlined in § 178.603(f).
We have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:
Q1. You ask whether the requirements for non-bulk Variation 2 combination packagings
contained in § 178.601(g)(2) are used in conjunction with the criteria for passing the drop
test in accordance with § 178.603(f)(4).
A1. The answer is yes. Variation 2 combination packagings allow articles or inner packagings
of any type to be assembled and transported without testing in an outer packaging;
however, the outer packaging must be part of a successfully tested combination
packaging and have passed the drop test requirements in § 178.603(f)(4), as instructed in
§ 178.601(g)(2)(i). For inner packagings, inner receptacles, or articles, the drop test
performance criteria is that they must remain completely within the outer packaging and
no leakage of the filling substance may be observed from the inner receptacles or inner
packagings. In the instance of Variation 2, the originally tested packaging must have
inner packagings that are fragile (e.g., glass) and contain liquids (and were dropped at the
Packing Group I drop height). Please note that in order to use a Variation 2 combination
packaging, a person must also ensure compliance with additional conditions outlined in
§ 178.601(g)(2)(ii)-(vii).

<<<PAGE 2>>>

Q2. You ask—if the answer to Q1 is yes—can the outer packaging be considered to have
passed the drop test if the inner packaging leaks or ruptures, but the leakage is contained
within the leakproof liner and/or is completely absorbed by the absorbent material.
A2. The answer is no. To be considered a “successful” pass result during the drop test, the
outer packaging with fragile inner packagings must not show signs of leakage of the
filling substance, and the fragile inner packagings must remain completely within the
outer packaging. Please note, the originally tested packaging does not necessarily require
a leakproof liner or use of absorbent material; rather, these packaging materials are
criteria for packaging modifications without further testing.
Q3. You ask whether a passing result is dependent on a liner and absorbent containing a leak
together, or can either perform the function of the containment.
A3. The answer is no. See answer A2.
Q4. You ask whether the packaging requirements in § 178.601(g)(2) are intended to be
utilized for a determination of a pass or a fail during any testing (e.g., design qualification
or periodic retest) of a Variation 2 combination packaging or are these requirements
standalone provisions that are assessed separately.
A4. The answer is that it depends. Selective testing of a combination packaging that differs
only in minor respects from a tested type is permitted in accordance with § 178.601(g).
Moreover, the originally tested combination packaging from which the outer packaging is
used in the Variation 2 combination packaging is subject to design qualification and
periodic retesting based on § 178.601(g)(2)(i) and (iv), and the remaining conditions are
considered standalone provisions for variation from the tested combination packaging.
For example, under § 178.601(g)(2)(iii), the thickness of cushioning material between
inner packagings and between inner packagings and the outside of the packaging may not
be reduced below the corresponding thickness in the originally tested packaging
(emphasis added).
Q5. You ask—if the requirements are considered separate from testing—how would a self-
certifier or third-party lab assess these packagings for the purpose of design qualification
or periodic retesting.
A5. The packaging manufacturer is subject to design qualification and periodic retesting of
performance-oriented packaging. A person producing a Variation 2 packaging that is not
the manufacturer of the originally tested packaging must take steps to ensure that the
original design was successfully tested and is periodically tested. Variation 2 combination
packages, when shipped, are not subject to design qualification or periodic retesting. The

<<<PAGE 3>>>

originally tested packaging that provides the component parts (e.g., the outer packaging)
used in a Variation 2 packaging is subject to the drop test and stack test requirements, in
addition to other conditions as outlined (see § 178.601(g)(2)(i)-(vii)), that when adhered
to, allow for the variation of the packaging without further testing.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Dirk Der Kinderen
Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division

<<<PAGE 4>>>

Baker
20-0040
From: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)
To: Hazmat Interps
Subject: FW: Request for Interpretation
Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:38:13 PM
Attachments: Memo_Request for Interpretation_PSCC.PDF
Hello,
Attached is a request for letter of interpretation.
Thanks,
Jonathon, HMIC
-----Original Message-----
From: Roberts, Ryan E CIV USARMY ASC (USA) [mailto:ryan.e.roberts6.civ@mail.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50 AM
To: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>
Cc: Veneziano, Joseph CIV USARMY ASC (USA) <joseph.veneziano.civ@mail.mil>; Fitzpatrick, John L CIV
USARMY ASC (USA) <john.l.fitzpatrick.civ@mail.mil>
Subject: Request for Interpretation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Kelley,
Please see the attached CFR 49 request for interpretation. any additional information.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require
Thank you,
V/R,
Ryan Roberts
ASC Packaging, Storage & Containerization Ctr Logistics, Testing, and Applications Division, AMAS-SPI-L
11 Hap Arnold Blvd.
Building 2 Bay 5
Tobyhanna, PA 18466-5097
DSN 795-9056 Comm (570) 615-9056
FAX (570) 615-7894

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/75736/210040.pdf>
- Source ID: `phmsa`
- SHA-256: `b207c8bb70671cb9c3ffc87874ee60b10b31bc7663a657662b00e71b62fb187c`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T00:59:31.977Z
- Exported: 2026-08-22T22:28:08.231Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-interpretation-21-0040`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "materialSubtype": "interpretation",
  "interpretationArea": "hazardous_materials",
  "representation": "full_text_from_official_pdf",
  "companies": [
    "Department of the Army, Army Sustainment Command (ASC) ASC Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center Logistics, Testing, and Applications Division"
  ],
  "individuals": [
    "Ryan Roberts"
  ],
  "refIds": [
    "21-0040"
  ],
  "catalogDates": [
    "2021-08-18"
  ],
  "catalogParts": [
    178
  ],
  "catalogRowCount": 2,
  "sourceRecordUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/72851"
  ],
  "linkedAttachmentUrls": [],
  "unavailableResponseUrls": [],
  "duplicateRepresentationUrls": [],
  "citedSections": [
    "178.601",
    "178.601(g)(2)",
    "178.603",
    "178.603(f)"
  ],
  "catalogPageUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/178601",
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/178603"
  ],
  "pdfUrls": [
    "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/75736/210040.pdf"
  ],
  "representations": [
    {
      "viewUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/75736/210040.pdf",
      "detailUrl": null,
      "detailHtmlPath": null,
      "pdfUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/75736/210040.pdf",
      "pdfArtifactPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/21-0040-c2cdff1b1d.pdf",
      "pdfArtifactSha256": "940d08f1372e18c7612b6c5f32883d291bec1c89cdaf2b6f164fe68e44cd2169",
      "extractedTextPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/21-0040-c2cdff1b1d.v2.txt",
      "extractedTextSha256": "86aa85f8b09fafc73a5eda34a12c3b89c26ec59c549eaf57981c2f90df5970f9",
      "pageCount": 4,
      "extractionVersion": 2
    }
  ],
  "caveat": "Interpretations apply regulations to the facts presented and do not create independently enforceable requirements.",
  "jurisdiction": "US"
}
```
