{"operation":"document","citation":"20-0054","title":"Defense Logistics Agency — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2020-09-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"20-0054 response to Defense Logistics Agency concerning 171.8, 173.13, 173.27, 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0054.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0054.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0054","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/74401/200054.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nSeptember 25, 2020\nJoshua Hess\nGeneral Supply Specialist\nDefense Logistics Agency\n2001 Mission Drive\n2nd Floor, Suite 6\nNew Cumberland, PA 17070\nReference No. 20-0054\nDear Mr. Hess:\nThis letter is in response to your July 27, 2020, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to UN specification\ncombination packaging test requirements. Specifically, you provide the following scenario:\n• You prepare hazardous materials shipment for air transportation;\n• The hazardous material is placed in a fiberboard (4GV) specification combination\npackaging;\n• The inner packaging, as provided from the manufacturer, is a paint can that is sealed with\na locking ring; and\n• The manufacturer states that “when installed correctly, it allows the paint can to meet\n95 kPa” and the requirements of § 173.13.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. You ask whether the entire combination packaging needs to meet the pressure\nrequirements of § 173.27, when the inner packaging meets those pressure requirements.\nA1. The answer is no. Section 173.27(c)(2) requires that for transportation by aircraft,\npackagings for which retention of liquid is a basic function must be capable of\nwithstanding—without leakage—the pressure requirements of either §§ 173.27(c)(2)(i) or\n(ii), whichever is greater. Therefore, if the inner packaging meets the pressure\nrequirements of § 173.27(c)(2), the outer packaging is not required to also meet those\npressure requirements.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ2. You ask whether the paint can inner packaging could become an intermediary packaging\nwithout the entire package being retested. You state that the paint can inner packaging\nwould be filled with another inner packaging that contains the liquid hazardous material.\nA2. The answer is yes, if the provisions of § 178.601(g)(2) can be met. The packaging you\ndescribed in your scenario is marked as having passed the selective testing and meeting\nthe conditions of combination packaging, variation 2 in § 178.601(g)(2) (the “V” in the\n“4GV” marking indicates compliance with this variation). Under certain conditions in\n§ 178.601(g)(2), this variation authorizes the assembly and transportation of a different\ninner packaging than originally tested. Therefore, if your new inner packaging within the\nintermediate package configuration can meet the variation 2 requirements, the\ncombination packaging does not need to be retested.\nIf the variation 2 provisions of § 178.601(g)(2) cannot be met, the package would need to\nbe retested. By placing an additional inner packaging into the originally tested inner\npackaging (i.e., paint can), the originally tested inner packaging now meets the § 171.8\ndefinition of an intermediate packaging. Therefore, this new combination packaging\nwould meet the definition of a different packaging and would be required to be retested.\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 3>>>\n\nGeller\n20-0054\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Inner packaging meeting 95 KPA without whole package being tested\nDate: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1:57:01 PM\nDear Alice and Ikeya,\nPlease see below for a letter of interpretation request.\nPlease contact our office with any questions.\nThank you,\nSarah (HMIC)\nFrom: Hess, Joshua D CIV DLA HUMAN RESOURCES (USA) [mailto:Joshua.Hess@dla.mil]\nSent: Monday, July 27, 2020 11:01 AM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter <PHMSAHMInfoCenter@dot.gov>\nSubject: Inner packaging meeting 95 KPA without whole package being tested\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or\nopen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nGood afternoon Mr. Shane Kelly,\nI am looking to find some clarification on combination packaging’s going air. In the example\nI would be using a 4GV box with the inner being paint cans sealed with a manufactures (Uline, label\nmaster, etc.) locking ring. The manufacture of the locking ring states that “when installed correctly it\nallows the paint can to meet 95 KPA”. It also states that it meets the requirements of 173.13 of the\n49CFR. 173.13 references 173.27 which is the regulation saying that that inner containers must\nmeet 95 or 75 KPA depending on Packing group and class identification. I know that fiberboard\nboxes do not require a pressure test as per the regulations. I also know that inners of a combination\npackage do not need pressure test as per the regulation, but they do need to meet the pressures\nstated in 173.27. Also with this package all other requirements would be met(spill containment,\nabsorbent material, etc) as per regulation. I am being advised that even though the manufacture\nstates that the locking ring and can will meet 95 KPA that the entire package must still be tested in\norder to prove that the entire package meets 95 KPA. Does this entire assembled package need to\nbe tested before being used to ship HAZ or is the tested locking ring and can sufficient to meet the\nrequirements for an air shipment in a 4GV outer? Also would this inner can and lock ring be\nsufficient to ship as an intermediate container with different inners and as the inner itself to contain\na liquid? I would like to request a formal letter of interpretation for this concern.\nThank you in advance for you assistance with this information.\nJoshua Hess\nGeneral Supply Specialist (instructor)\nJ1-DTDN\n2001 mission dr, 2nd Floor, Suite 6\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nNew Cumberland, Pa 17070\nDesk phone – (717) 770 -2734\nWork Cell – (717) 825-4762\nJoshua.hess@dla.mil","truncated":false,"body_characters":5894}