{"operation":"document","citation":"22-0057","title":"Department of The Army — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2023-07-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"22-0057 response to Department of The Army concerning 178.503, 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0057.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0057.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0057","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/77881/220057.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nJuly 28, 2023\nMr. Thomas Kudasz\nDirector, Command Safety\nDepartment of The Army\nMilitary Surface Deployment and Distribution Command\n1 Soldier Way\nScott Air Force Base, IL 62225-5006\nReference No. 22-0057\nDear Mr. Kudasz:\nThis letter is in response to your June 3, 2022, letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to non-bulk United Nations\n(UN) performance packaging. Specifically, you ask whether placing additional new padding\nbetween the sealed inner bag and the outer fiberboard box of a previously-tested combination\npackaging would be considered a “different” packaging and require separate design qualification\ntesting.\nAs described by your scenario, it is the opinion of this Office that the addition of new padding\nplaced between the sealed inner bag and the outer fiberboard box would not be considered a\n“different” packaging as defined in § 178.601(c)(4). The padding is merely for cushioning\npurposes and does not alter the combination packaging in any tangible manner provided the\ncompleted package does not exceed its rated capacity. See § 178.503(a)(11).\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY\nMILITARY SURFACE DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION COMMAND\n1 SOLDIER WAY\nSCOTT AFB, IL 62225-5006\nDirector, Command Safety 3 June 2022\nMEMORANDUM FOR ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY\nATTENTION: GENERAL APPROVALS & PERMITS, PHH-31\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nEAST BUILDING\n1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, SE\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590-0001\ninfocntr@dot.gov\nSUBJECT: Interpretation of 178.601 UN Specification (POP) Packaging Requirements\nIn accordance with the provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 105.20, this\napplication is hereby made for interpretation of permitted relief from the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations on behalf of the Department of Defense.\nThe interpretation request is regarding adding an intermediate level of packaging that was not present\nin the configuration used during POP testing. As an example, for shipping an article, the POP test\nreport depicts the article being packaged in an inner packaging consisting of a sealed bag. Can that\nsealed bag be packed in padding and placed inside an outer fiberboard box to create a combination\npackage inside the POP-certified fibreboard box? Will adding to the specified configuration of the\npackaging require new POP testing to be performed?\nThis request is submitted by usarmy.scott.sddc.mbx.hazmat-team@army.mil Safety Team, Mr. Tom Kudasz,\n(618) 220-5899, e-mail thomas.m.kudasz.civ@army.mil and Mr. Jeff Leitschuh, (618) 220-5040, e-mail\njeffrey.m.leitschuh.civ@army.mil, Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command.\nELIAS V. CANTU\nDirector, Command Safety\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>","truncated":false,"body_characters":3171}