{"operation":"document","citation":"20-0010","title":"AECOM Techincal Services — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2020-08-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"20-0010 response to AECOM Techincal Services concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0010","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/74246/200010.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nAugust 18, 2020\nAndy Romach\nPrincipal Scientist\nAECOM Technical Services\n1600 Perimeter Drive, Suite 400\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nReference No. 20-0010\nDear Mr. Romach:\nThis letter is in response to your February 5, 2020, letter requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to UN specification\nmarks on packagings. You describe a scenario in which a 4G box is tested in two different\nconfigurations – one that includes gel packs and one that uses paper filler instead of gel\npacks. You believe that the use of the 4G box with different inner packagings does not\nqualify it as a different packaging, as provided in § 178.601(c)(4)(ii).\nSpecifically, you ask whether it is permissible to mark the packaging with a single marking that\nreflects the greater tested maximum gross mass to cover both packaging configurations, rather\nthan choosing only one marking representative of the packaging based on the specific\nconfiguration (i.e., the type of cushioning material) used at the time of shipment.\nThe answer is no. In order to be excluded as a “different packaging” in accordance with\n§ 178.601(c)(4)(ii), the inner packagings must be the only component that differs within the\ncombination packaging. However, given that a gel pack does not meet the definition of an inner\npackaging (as it is not used to contain hazardous materials), the packaging variations you\ndescribe meet the definition of a different packaging. Therefore, in this instance, a single\nmarking that attempts to cover both specifications is not appropriate.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nDirk Der Kinderen\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent:\nTo:\nSubject: Attachments: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 4:20 PM\nHazmat lnterps\nFW: Request for Letter of Interpretation ...\nUN package markings 02052020.pdf; INTERP ANDY ROMACH.docx\nHello Alice and lkeya,\nAttached is a request for letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nJonathon, HMIC\nFrom: Welch, Marshall [mailto:marshall.welch@aecom.com]\nSent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 10:57 AM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nCc: Norris, Carolyn <carolyn.norris@aecom.com>; Ramach, Andy <andy.romach@aecom.com>\nSubject: Request for Letter of Interpretation .. .\nSee attached written request for Letter of Interpretation.\nLet us know if you have any questions or need additional information.\nThanks,\nMarshall Welch\nDangerous Goods Compliance Specialist/ Quality Manager, EHS Department\nD +1-919-461 -1394\nmarshall.welch@aecom.com\nAECOM\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\nSuite 400\nMorrisville, NC 27560, USA\nT +1 -919-461-1100\naecom.com\nBuilt to deliver a better world\nLinkedln Twitter Facebook lnstagram\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nAECOM\nAECOM\n1600 Perimeter Drive, Suite 400\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nwww.aecom.com\n919 4611100 tel\n9194611415 fax\nFebruary 5, 2020\nMr. Shane Kelley, Director\nStandards and Rulemaking (PHH-10)\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Material Transportation Administration (PHMSA)\nEast Building, Second Floor\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nPhone: + 1 202-366-7 435\nDear Mr. Kelley:\nI am writing to request a written Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) Department of Transportation (DOT) regulatory interpretation concerning the\napplication of a single printed United Nations (UN) certification marking to a packaging system\nthat has been tested successfully to meet the criteria of two separate packaging tests.\nThis UN certification packaging system was successfully tested with gel packs to keep the\ncontents cold. The same UN certification packaging was also successfully tested with the gel\npacks removed, and paper filler material inserted to fill the void where the gel packs were\nlocated. The gross weight of each packaging system differs, but the packaging systems are\nidentical in other respects.\n• The UN specification marking for the packaging system tested with the gel packs is:\nUN 4G/Y14.0/S/18/USA [Manufacturer's Symbo~;\n• The UN specification marking for the packaging system tested with the gel packs\nremoved and cushioning inserted into the void space is: UN 4G/Y11.3/S/18/USA\n[Manufacturer's Symbo~.\nThese two package tests results could be combined into the same Test Report, with the\ninstruction that the specification marking for the greater weight packaging be used.\nIt appears that the above packaging configuration does not meet the definition of \"A different\npackaging\" in 49 CFR 178.600(c)(4):\n(4) A different packaging is one that differs (i.e., is not identical) from a previously\nproduced packaging structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness or\nmanner of construction but does not include:\n* * * *\n(ii) A combination packaging which differs only in that the outer packaging has\nbeen successfully tested with different inner packaging. A variety of such inner\npackagings may be assembled in this outer packaging without further testing.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nA:COM\nPHMSA DOT Regulatory Interpretation Request\nPage 2 of 2\nFebruary 5, 2020\nIt has come to our attention that the packaging acceptance system implemented by certain\ntransporters consists of reviewing the outer packaging for only one UN specification marking.\nIf more than one UN specification marking is detected on the packaging, then the packaging is\nrejected. This procedure has resulted in many frustrated shipments.\nTo avoid continued frustration of shipments, we would like for the above-described packaging to\ndisplay only one UN certification marking, allowing the certification marking with the greater\ngross weight of the packaging system to be used (e.g., 4G/Y14.0/S/18/USA. .... ). Apart from the\ngross weight, the certification markings are identical. As mentioned previously, these two\npackage tests could be combined into the same Test Report, with the result that the certification\nfor the greater weight packaging be used.\nWould this approach be acceptable? Apply only a single UN certification marking on the\npackaging, using the certification marking from the test with the greatest weight and have both\ncertification markings listed in the test report.\nIf you have questions concerning this request, please call me at (919) 461-1220.\nSincerely,\nAndy Romach\nPrincipal Scientist\nAECOM Technical Services\nandy.romach@aecom.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":6603}