{"operation":"document","citation":"06-0124","title":"Dangerous Goods Advisory Council — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2005-10-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"06-0124 response to Dangerous Goods Advisory Council concerning 171.8, 173.24.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0124.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0124.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0124","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060124.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nOCT\n5 2006\nTechnical Director\nMr. Frits Wybenga\nRef. No.: 06-0124\nDangerous Goods Advisory Council\nSuite 740\n1100 H Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20005\nDear Mr. Wybenga:\nThis is in response to your May 12, 2006 letter concerning the definition of \"non-bulk\npackaging\" as defined in § 171.8 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n171-180). Specifically, you ask this office to reconsider the interpretation in our May 23, 2005\nletter to Wyle Laboratories regarding the definition of a \"non-bulk packaging.\"\nNon-bulk packaging means a packaging that has a maximum net mass of 400 kg (882 pounds) or\nless and a maximum capacity of 450 L (119 gallons) or less as a receptacle for a solid. It\nremains our opinion that the packaging Mr. Thomas R. Hamilton described is not a non-bulk\npackaging because it has a maximum capacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons). Outer\nPackagings, which contain solids (e.g., fireworks, articles, or other receptacles containing\nfireworks), must be measured in terms of their capacity as well as their net mass. The packaging\nPackaging\" and, based on its volumetric capacity, would be a bulk packaging. To make the\ndescribed by Wyle Laboratories in its original letter would meet the definition of a \"Large\ndefinitions easier to understand, under Docket HM-231, published September 1, 2006 (71 FR\n52017) we have proposed to revise the current definitions for \"Bulk packaging,\" \"Large\npackaging,\" and \"Non-bulk packaging\"\nthis office.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact\nSincerely,\nSusan Gorsky\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nRegulations Officer\n171.8\n,13.24\n060124\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nPollack\nPage 1 of 1\n5171.84/73.24\nDrakeford, Carolyn <PHMSA>\nDefinitions Packages \"Packagungs\nFrom: Mazzullo, Ed <PHMSA>\n06-0124\nSent:\nFriday, May 12, 2006 8:25 AM\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn <PHMSA>\nCc:\nGale, John <PHMSA>; Gorsky, Susan <PHMSA>; Pollack, Arthur <PHMSA>\nSubject: FW: Response on letter\ntrack down a copy of the original incoming (I don't recall seeing a cc) and assign it for handling. Thanks.\nThis was probably sent to PHH-30 or 40 for handling, but it does involve an interpretation. Please see if you can\nFrom: f.wybenga@comcast.net[mailto:f.wybenga@comcast.net]\nTo: Mazzullo, Ed <PHMSA>\nSent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 2:05 PM\nSubject: Response on letter\nHi Ed - The attached letter was sent in last summer but was never responded to. While the company\n4G packaging is a more desirable approach. The large packaging approach has cost them an additional\nappreciates the relief gotten by way of an approval authorizing 250kg fireworks in a large packaging, a\n$500K for shipments for this July 4 with no appreciable increase in safety.\nThe 450 liters in the nonbulk definition was never intended to apply to articles. The packaging they\nhave used is authorized under 173.24(c)(2). International shippers importing into the US can use\nthis package now under our regulations. While I understand you may address this in an upcoming\nrulemaking, they need an interpretation now.\nrequest (which is incomplete anyway) since an approval covers them at the moment. The petition for\nAnything you can do to expedite would be appreciated. There is no need to pursue the exemption\nrulemaking is valid. - Frits\n5/12/2006","truncated":false,"body_characters":3461}