{"operation":"document","citation":"21-0040","title":"Department of the Army, Army Sustainment Command (ASC) ASC Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center Logistics, Testing, and Applications Division — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2021-08-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"21-0040 response to Department of the Army, Army Sustainment Command (ASC) ASC Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center Logistics, Testing, and Applications Division concerning 178.601, 178.603.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0040.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0040.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0040","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/75736/210040.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, 2021\nMr. Ryan Roberts\nDepartment of the Army, Army Sustainment Command (ASC)\nASC Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center\nLogistics, Testing, and Applications Division\n11 Hap Arnold Blvd.\nBldg. 2, Bay 5\nTobyhanna, PA 18466\nReference No. 21-0040\nDear Mr. Roberts:\nThis letter is in response to your April 14, 2021, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the testing of non-bulk\npackagings and packages. Specifically, you seek clarification regarding the requirements for\nVariation 2 combination packagings in § 178.601(g)(2) and the criteria for passing the drop test\noutlined in § 178.603(f).\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. You ask whether the requirements for non-bulk Variation 2 combination packagings\ncontained in § 178.601(g)(2) are used in conjunction with the criteria for passing the drop\ntest in accordance with § 178.603(f)(4).\nA1. The answer is yes. Variation 2 combination packagings allow articles or inner packagings\nof any type to be assembled and transported without testing in an outer packaging;\nhowever, the outer packaging must be part of a successfully tested combination\npackaging and have passed the drop test requirements in § 178.603(f)(4), as instructed in\n§ 178.601(g)(2)(i). For inner packagings, inner receptacles, or articles, the drop test\nperformance criteria is that they must remain completely within the outer packaging and\nno leakage of the filling substance may be observed from the inner receptacles or inner\npackagings. In the instance of Variation 2, the originally tested packaging must have\ninner packagings that are fragile (e.g., glass) and contain liquids (and were dropped at the\nPacking Group I drop height). Please note that in order to use a Variation 2 combination\npackaging, a person must also ensure compliance with additional conditions outlined in\n§ 178.601(g)(2)(ii)-(vii).\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ2. You ask—if the answer to Q1 is yes—can the outer packaging be considered to have\npassed the drop test if the inner packaging leaks or ruptures, but the leakage is contained\nwithin the leakproof liner and/or is completely absorbed by the absorbent material.\nA2. The answer is no. To be considered a “successful” pass result during the drop test, the\nouter packaging with fragile inner packagings must not show signs of leakage of the\nfilling substance, and the fragile inner packagings must remain completely within the\nouter packaging. Please note, the originally tested packaging does not necessarily require\na leakproof liner or use of absorbent material; rather, these packaging materials are\ncriteria for packaging modifications without further testing.\nQ3. You ask whether a passing result is dependent on a liner and absorbent containing a leak\ntogether, or can either perform the function of the containment.\nA3. The answer is no. See answer A2.\nQ4. You ask whether the packaging requirements in § 178.601(g)(2) are intended to be\nutilized for a determination of a pass or a fail during any testing (e.g., design qualification\nor periodic retest) of a Variation 2 combination packaging or are these requirements\nstandalone provisions that are assessed separately.\nA4. The answer is that it depends. Selective testing of a combination packaging that differs\nonly in minor respects from a tested type is permitted in accordance with § 178.601(g).\nMoreover, the originally tested combination packaging from which the outer packaging is\nused in the Variation 2 combination packaging is subject to design qualification and\nperiodic retesting based on § 178.601(g)(2)(i) and (iv), and the remaining conditions are\nconsidered standalone provisions for variation from the tested combination packaging.\nFor example, under § 178.601(g)(2)(iii), the thickness of cushioning material between\ninner packagings and between inner packagings and the outside of the packaging may not\nbe reduced below the corresponding thickness in the originally tested packaging\n(emphasis added).\nQ5. You ask—if the requirements are considered separate from testing—how would a self-\ncertifier or third-party lab assess these packagings for the purpose of design qualification\nor periodic retesting.\nA5. The packaging manufacturer is subject to design qualification and periodic retesting of\nperformance-oriented packaging. A person producing a Variation 2 packaging that is not\nthe manufacturer of the originally tested packaging must take steps to ensure that the\noriginal design was successfully tested and is periodically tested. Variation 2 combination\npackages, when shipped, are not subject to design qualification or periodic retesting. The\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\noriginally tested packaging that provides the component parts (e.g., the outer packaging)\nused in a Variation 2 packaging is subject to the drop test and stack test requirements, in\naddition to other conditions as outlined (see § 178.601(g)(2)(i)-(vii)), that when adhered\nto, allow for the variation of the packaging without further testing.\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 4>>>\n\nBaker\n20-0040\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Request for Interpretation\nDate: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:38:13 PM\nAttachments: Memo_Request for Interpretation_PSCC.PDF\nHello,\nAttached is a request for letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nJonathon, HMIC\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Roberts, Ryan E CIV USARMY ASC (USA) [mailto:ryan.e.roberts6.civ@mail.mil]\nSent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 8:50 AM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nCc: Veneziano, Joseph CIV USARMY ASC (USA) <joseph.veneziano.civ@mail.mil>; Fitzpatrick, John L CIV\nUSARMY ASC (USA) <john.l.fitzpatrick.civ@mail.mil>\nSubject: Request for Interpretation\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.\nMr. Kelley,\nPlease see the attached CFR 49 request for interpretation. any additional information.\nPlease let me know if you have any questions or require\nThank you,\nV/R,\nRyan Roberts\nASC Packaging, Storage & Containerization Ctr Logistics, Testing, and Applications Division, AMAS-SPI-L\n11 Hap Arnold Blvd.\nBuilding 2 Bay 5\nTobyhanna, PA 18466-5097\nDSN 795-9056 Comm (570) 615-9056\nFAX (570) 615-7894","truncated":false,"body_characters":6661}