# BCA Packaging Services — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 21-0009
- **title:** BCA Packaging Services — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation
- **source type:** guidance
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** guidance
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2021-04-30
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 21-0009 response to BCA Packaging Services concerning 173.56.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0009.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0009.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0009
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/74981/210009.pdf
**body:**

<<<PAGE 1>>>

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
April 30, 2021
Nelson Kays
Packaging Engineering Specialist
BCA Packaging Services
Reference No. 21-0009
Dear Mr. Kays:
This letter is in response to your January 29, 2021, letter and previous phone conversations
requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180)
applicable to UN Series 6(d) testing. Specifically, you describe a scenario in which your
company repackages and reoffers an explosive that is currently approved under EX2003030247;
however, the approval is issued to a different company. Furthermore, you state that when
repackaged, the explosive continues to be identified and associated with the manufacturer and
product designation/part number specified in the EX approval.
We have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:
Q1. You ask whether your company can reproduce the packaging authorized in
EX2003030247 without conducting UN Series 6(d) testing. You indicate that the
reproduced packaging retains the specified segregation dimensions, spacing, and
materials of construction of the original inner and intermediate packaging, but is
designed to hold less than 20 intermediate packagings (i.e., less than the maximum
specified in the EX approval).
A1. The answer is yes. The EX approval authorizes the transportation of the explosive in the
packaging configuration outlined in the Competent Authority Approval (i.e., the EX
approval) letter, and indicates that the explosive meets the UN Series 6(d) test criteria
when in the prescribed configuration. Therefore, when the reproduced packaging meets
all of the conditions prescribed in the packaging notes, the approval remains valid
without needing new UN Series 6(d) testing. Please note that the explosive still must be
offered under the EX approval, and must be associated with the manufacturer and product
designation/part number specified in the EX approval.

<<<PAGE 2>>>

Q2. You ask whether an UN Specification 4G (fiberboard) box must be used as the outer
packaging when reproducing the packaging, as described in Q1.
A2. The answer is yes. See answer A1 as well as the EX approval for outer packaging
requirements.
Q3. You ask whether the materials of construction (i.e., the specific fiberboard material,
fluting, number of corrugate layers or edge crush/burst strength of board, etc.) must be
identical to the UN Specification 4G (fiberboard) box in the EX approval, when
reproducing the packaging as described in Q1.
A3. The answer is no, unless a difference in the outer packaging would impact the
classification of the explosive. As specified in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria,
Section 16.7.1.3.1, explosives shall be submitted for UN Series testing “in the same
condition and form in which they are offered for transport.” While the EX approval does
not specify criteria regarding the UN Specification 4G (fiberboard) box, the classification
of an explosive article or substance is based on the packaging configuration used during
testing. Therefore, a change to the packaging configuration, such as a change to the UN
Specification 4G (fiberboard) box, that would impact the classification of the explosive
article or substance (e.g., a change that would affect test results), would constitute a “new
explosive” in accordance with § 173.56(a)(2).
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Dirk Der Kinderen
Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division

<<<PAGE 3>>>

Geller
21-0009
Hello Mr. Foster,
I am writing to request a formal letter of interpretation. Can you please provide guidance in regards to
49CFR§172.102 (c)(1)347?
The Special Provision States:
Effective July 1, 2011, for transportation by aircraft, this entry may only be used if the results of Test series 6(d) of
Part I of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria (IBR, see §171.7 of this subchapter) have demonstrated that any
hazardous effects from accidental functioning are confined to within the package. Effective January 1, 2012, for
transportation by vessel, this entry may only be used if the results of Test Series 6(d) of Part I of the UN Manual of
Tests and Criteria (IBR, see §171.7 of this subchapter) have demonstrated that any hazardous effects from
accidental functioning are confined to within the package. Effective January 1, 2014, for transportation domestically
by highway or rail, this entry may only be used if the results of Test Series 6(d) of Part I of the UN Manual of Tests
and Criteria (IBR, see §171.7 of this subchapter) have demonstrated that any hazardous effects from accidental
functioning are confined to within the package. Testing must be performed or witnessed by a person who is approved
by the Associate Administrator (see §173.56(b) of this subchapter). All successfully conducted tests or reassignment
to another compatibility group require the issuance of a new or revised approval by the Associate Administrator prior
to transportation on or after the dates specified for each authorized mode of transport in this special provision.
My question has 2 parts
Part 1:
Can Boeing produce 6(d) tested packaging as specified by a CA letter without further 6(d) testing?
Pacific scientific offers a 4x5 array of 20count 1.4s P/N 52000735-1 in one package as approved under
EX2003030247 with a completed 6(d) test.
Boeing would like to reproduce the inner packagings and intermediate packaging. All specified dimensions,
spacing and materials will be retained with a reduced quantity of inner packagings. Pacific Scientific P/N
52000735-1 will be offered for shipment using EX2003030247 without further 6(d) testing.
Part 2:
Is the specification of outer packaging (4G Box) included in requirements of the 6(d) test?
CA Letter specifies 4G fiberboard but does not specify flute, number of corrugate layers or edge
crush/burst strength of board. Is Boeing able to specify grade of 4G corrugated fiberboard based on POP’s
testing alone or does it need to match the specific board material used in the 6(d) test by Pacific Scientific?
Attachments:
• EX2003030247.pdf
• M2252-D37511-3.pdf
• D37511-3_PRODUCT STANDARD.pdf

<<<PAGE 4>>>

Geller
From: Foster, Glenn (PHMSA)
To: Subject: Date: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA); Hillman, Kenetha CTR (PHMSA)
[EXTERNAL] Repackaging Explosives, UN6(d) criteria, UN0323 Cartridge Power Device 1.4S
Monday, February 1, 2021 10:46:39 AM
21-0009
Alice / Kenetha
Please see the attached request for an Interp for processing and assignment to a Specialist.
Thanks,
Glenn
From: Kays (US), Nelson S [mailto:nelson.s.kays@boeing.com]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 5:15 PM
To: Foster, Glenn (PHMSA) <Glenn.Foster@dot.gov>
Cc: Fink, William (PHMSA) <William.Fink@dot.gov>; Boik (US), Randy P <randy.p.boik@boeing.com>; Burger, Donald (PHMSA) <donald.burger@dot.gov>; Singh, Harpreet (PHMSA)
<harpreet.singh@dot.gov>; Raszewski, Kimberly (PHMSA) <kimberly.raszewski@dot.gov>; Nicklous, Joseph (PHMSA) <joseph.nicklous@dot.gov>; Payne (US), Scott B
<scott.b.payne@boeing.com>; Vos, Brian (PHMSA) <brian.vos@dot.gov>; Pollack, Arthur (PHMSA) <arthur.pollack@dot.gov>; Roth (US), Randolph R <randolph.r.roth@boeing.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Repackaging Explosives, UN6(d) criteria, UN0323 Cartridge Power Device 1.4S
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello all,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us and discuss 6(d) testing requirements,
Please see attached for Boeings formal request for interpretation and supporting documents.
Thank you,
Nelson Kays
Packaging Engineering Specialist
Enterprise Transportation, Warehousing & Logistics
Work: 425-306-2826
Cell: 714-615-9170
nelson.s.kays@boeing.com
BCA Packaging Services
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Fink, William (PHMSA) [mailto:William.Fink@dot.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 1:04 PM
To: Fink, William (PHMSA); Burger, Donald (PHMSA); Singh, Harpreet (PHMSA); Raszewski, Kimberly (PHMSA); Foster, Glenn (PHMSA); Nicklous, Joseph (PHMSA); Payne (US), Scott B
Cc: Vos, Brian (PHMSA); Pollack, Arthur (PHMSA)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Repackaging Explosives, UN6(d) criteria, UN0323 Cartridge Power Device 1.4S
When: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:00 PM-4:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting
EXT email: be mindful of
links/attachments.
&nbsp;
NOTE: &nbsp; WE WILL NOT BE USING MSTEAMS AS SOME DO NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Your conference has been setup for January 19, 2021.
&nbsp;
Your dial in number will be 202-366-6338
&nbsp;
Your schedule time: 3:00pm – 4:00pm
&nbsp;
Number of lines: 15
&nbsp;
Your passcode is: 217764
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Agenda:
&nbsp;
1. Introductions
2. Statement of the request
3. Review of EX2003030247 (attached)
4. Packaging as received by Boeing
5. Re-packaged
6. PHMSA comments on what was presented.
7. Additional information requested/required.
8. Interp letter necessary?
9. Comments/Concerns
10. Action items
11. Ajournment
&nbsp;
William Fink
IF YOU FORWARDED THE INVITE PLEASE DO SO AGAIN.

<<<PAGE 5>>>

Transportation Specialist
William.Fink@dot.gov
&nbsp;
US Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington DC, 20590
Office: 202-366-1108 ◊
&nbsp;
PHMSA Home | LinkedIn | Twitter | HAZMAT | OPS
<< File: image001.jpg >> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; << File: image002.png >>
&nbsp;
<< File: image003.png >>
&nbsp;
Meeting &nbsp;Suggested-
“…suggest that it may be best to set up a call with Mr. Payne and include our technical experts as well.&nbsp; To ensure we fully understand the nuance and provide a coordinated
response.&nbsp; That way our experts can ask questions and make sure we understand the scenario fully before we provide any definitive advice.”&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Background:
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
From: Payne (US), Scott B
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 5:09 PM
To: 'William.schoonover@dot.gov' <William.schoonover@dot.gov>
Subject: Boeing 1.4S shipping
&nbsp;
Mr. William Schoonover
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
13 November 2020
&nbsp;
The Boeing Company – Global Services
Spares Distribution Center
SeaTac, WA &nbsp;98138
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Mr. Schoonover,
&nbsp;
I am contacting you at the direction of my colleague, Dean Ramert. Dean mentioned that he had the opportunity to sit with you at a roundtable session during a COSTHA conference last year
and you provided valuable feedback to the attendees.
&nbsp;
The issue I am needing guidance with is the packaging of 1.4S Explosives and whether or not a UN 6(D) test is required.
&nbsp;
Boeing is a reseller of spare parts for commercial aircraft, and as such, has a large catalog of parts available to our customers. Some of these are Classified as 1.4S Explosives.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
After speaking to several authorities over the years, we have been operating under the impression that we could “piggyback” off of a manufacturers’ Approval without additional UN 6(D)
testing as long as we replicated the intermediate packaging called out in the test report ( &nbsp;I am attaching EX 2003030247 for reference).
&nbsp;
Dean has recently decided to retire and a new group has assumed his statement of work. The new team is questioning our previous interpretations.
&nbsp;
I am hoping you can provide guidance on how we can get this question answered so that we may go forward with the design and testing of our packaging.
&nbsp;
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Respectfully,
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Scott Payne
Manager – SDC Packaging Operations
Friday-Sunday,&nbsp; 6am-6pm.
<< File: image004.jpg >> 206-544-0070 | Cell: 206-769-3979
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
________________________________________________________________________________
The United States Department of Transportation
Learn More | Help | Meeting options
________________________________________________________________________________
&nbsp; << File: image005.jpg >> << File: image006.png >> << File: image007.png >> << File: image008.jpg >> << File:
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 12535
