{"operation":"document","citation":"05-0238","title":"Consultant — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2006-01-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"05-0238 response to Consultant concerning 173.26, 178.500.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0238.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0238.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0238","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2005/050238.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n400 Seventh Street, S.W\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nHazardous Materials Safety\nJAN 3 1 2006\nMr. Charles E. Tudor\nReference No.: 05-0238\nConsultant\n3869 Mammoth Cave Court\nPleasanton, CA 04588\nDear Mr. Tudor:\nThis responds to your letter concerning the approval of equivalent packagings under the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Your questions are\nparaphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1. When the HMR authorize a 4D packaging, may a 50D large packaging be substituted\nwithout obtaining an approval?\nAl. The answer is no. There are no provisions in the HMR that authorize use of a large\npackaging in lieu of a non-bulk packaging.\nQ2. May a plywood box that exceeds the size and volume of a non-bulk packaging be tested\nand certified as a 4D without obtaining an approval?\nA2. The answer is no. A packaging that does not meet the definition in § 171.8 of a non-bulk\npackaging may not be tested and certified as a non-bulk packaging.\napproved by the Associate Administrator. The large packaging must conform to the\nThe HMR in § 178.801(i) authorize the use of a large packaging, as defined in § 171.8, if\nconstruction standards, performance testing and packaging marking requirements specified in\nUnited Nation's Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. We may consider\nreview of the HMR definitions for bulk, non-bulk, and large packagings at some future date.\nI trust this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nHattie L. Mitchell\nOffice of Hazardous Material Safety\n173.24\n178.510\n050238\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nCHARLES E. TUDOR, CP-P/MH\nConsultant\nSeptember 20, 2005\nCorbin\n$173-26\nHattie Mitchell\nChief, RR and R (PHH-12)\n$178.500\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, S. W.\nPackagings\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n05-0238\nDear Hattie:\nA few months ago you issued an interpretation on the definition of Non-bulk Package as it\nappears in the HMR in Para. 171.8. I recently came by it and realized it appears to present some\nproblems that I would like to discuss. Actually I think the real problem lies with the definition\nitself as opposed to your interpretation. So here goes:\n1. The definition does not appear consistent with Para. 173.26 Quantity Limitations, which\ndefers to the package type definitions/standards in Subpart L of Part 178. In this part boxes are\nlimited by net mass only not physical size.\n2. I have been unable to find this definition in the UN Recommendations, ICAO TI or the IMIG :.\nCode. All these references defer to the package type standards which limit net mass only. The!\ndo contain the definition of Large Packaging, albeit the UN uses kg, L and cu M all in one\nsentence.\n3. The definition uses liquid measure to size packages for solids (Not very appropriate). 450 I\nresults in a cube only 30 x 30 x 30 inches-not a large box by any standard. It is logical that the\n450 L refers to the maximum capacity of single containers or maybe even inner packagings\ncontaining liquids in combination packages and that the 400 kg applies when a combination\npackage contains solids or articles.\n4. The Definition, with your interpretation leaves many non-compliant packages in the\ndistribution system. Namely those combination packages larger than 450L and rated for less th an\n400 kg net mass designed to contain large dimension light weight articles that have been tested\nand marked with non-bulk certification marks.\nI don't recall the history behind the non-bulk definition but would guess that it was placed in the\nregulations when the definition of Large Packaging was entered. If the definition were to be\nremoved, it would resolve most issues and create harmony with the UN Recommendations.\nIf the definition were to stay as is with your interpretation, there are many packages out there that\nPleasanton, CA 94588\n3869 Mammoth Cave Court\ncetudor@ix.netcom.com\nsbrglobal.nel\nFAX (925) 462-8:96\n(925) 462-4493\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nhave to be dealt with that have been certified under non-bulk testing rules going back 15 or mor\nyears-long before the notion of Large Packagings.\nLarge light weight containers are common for explosive articles and a variety of high tech\narticles that have large physical size and little weight. Treating them as non-bulk does not creat:\na safety issue as the performance test protocol is more thorough and severe than for Large\nPackagings.\nAny package type other than non-bulk for this would require approval prior to use. It would be\neasy to declare these large light weights \"Large Packagings\" but there is no provision in the\nHMR to use one without approval. Note that there is no mention of Large Packagings in the\nHMR beyond the 171.8 definition other than an obscure reference in the Testing Subpart for\nTBCs that says a large package may be used in lieu of an IBC if approved by the Associate\nAdministrator (see 178.801(i)). (I know of no application where it might be desirable to\nsubstitute a large combination package for an IBC.) Interestingly, 178.601(h) does not mention\nLarge Package options where it more appropriately should be.\nLarge Packagings have been incorporated into the IMDG Code for routine authorized use. My\nunderstanding is that shipment originating in the US would still require approval.\nBy copy of this letter to Mr. Delmer Billings, this would be a very appropriate agenda item for\nthe upcoming meeting of Third Parties November 9 in St Louis. Third Parties are directly\naffected by all this as well as shippers and the Approvals Branch. Indeed the Approvals Branch\ncould be burdened with many approval requests and shippers would be burdened with\napplications and time delays. Should Third Parties be given authorization to bypass this approv il\nprocess and automatically test to Large package protocols? E.g. where a 4D is an authorized\nnon-bulk package for an explosive article, can a 5OD be automatically be used without approval?\nI soon will be in receipt of three such design types (plywood boxes) for test. My customer and\nNASA are expecting 4D markings. Do I hold up the process and tell them to contact the\nApprovals Branch?\nRapid resolution would be beneficial to all impacted persons.\nHattie, what do you think? Is this a ball of snakes or am I getting too old?\nChales ador\nCharles E. Tudor\nThird Party (+AS)\ncc: Delmer Billings","truncated":false,"body_characters":6428}