# Westpak, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **operation:** document - **citation:** 13-0187 - **title:** Westpak, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **source type:** guidance - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** guidance - **official:** true - **published on:** 2013-11-29 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** 13-0187 response to Westpak, Inc. concerning 178.601. - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0187.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0187.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0187 - **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2013/130187.pdf **body:** <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 NOV 2 6 2013 Mr. Pal Khangaldy Director of Engineering Westpak, Inc. 83 Great Oaks Blvd. San Jose, CA 95119 Ref. No.: 13-0187 Dear Mr. Khangaldy: This is in response to your September 6, 2013 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to combination packages. In your scenario, you state that two similar combination packages are tested and certified as performance oriented packages with different inner packagings. You ask whether it is acceptable to mix the two types of inner packagings in the combination packages provided they not exceed the weight rating of the package system and all materials in the package are compatible. The answer to your question is yes. In accordance with§ 178.601(c)(4), a "different packaging" is defined as one that differs from a previously produced packaging in structural design, size, material, of construction, wall thickness or manner of construction. However, § 178.601 (c)( 4)(ii) states that this definition does not include a combination packaging which differs only in that the outer packaging has been successfully tested with different inner packagings. This definition permits a variety of inner packagings to be assembled in the outer packaging without further testing. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, ~7 ~:/},:;7;/[?t::;;-- T. Glenn Foster Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division ·-----~--- <<>> Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) From: Sent: To: Subject: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Friday, September 06, 2013 3:53 PM Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) FW: Request for Interpretation . lesttn!j t ~-()J 81 Hi Carolyn, This caller requested we submit this e-mail as a formal letter of interpretation. Thanks, Victoria From: Pal Khangaldy [mailto:Pal@westpak.com] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 3:11 PM To: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) S~bject: Request for Interpretation To Whom it May Concern, If two similar combination packages are tested and certified (POP tested) each containing two different sets of 4 inner bottles, is it acceptable to mix the two types of bottles under the variation 1 (the bottles are of similar weight) in Paragraph 178.601 of the 49-CFR. For example: Package A has 4 inner 1 00-ml HOPE bottles and has been tested and certified Package B has 4 inner 1 00-ml glass bottles and has been tested and certified Package A and Package B are identical with the exception of inner bottles. Is it possible to ship a package containing 2 1 00-ml HOPE bottles and 2 1 00-ml glass bottles in the combination package not exceeding the weight rating of the package system, granted all materials are compatible? Best Regards, Pal Khangaldy I Director of Engineering I Westpak, Inc. 83 Great Oaks Blvd I San Jose, CA 95119 Direct ( 408) 600-3414 I Main ( 408) 224-1300 I Fax ( 408) 224-5113 pal@westpak.com I www.westpak.com 1 - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 3117