{"operation":"document","citation":"24-0088","title":"Rockwell Collins — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2025-05-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"24-0088 response to Rockwell Collins concerning 173.62, 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0088.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0088.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0088","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2025-05/240088.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMay 22, 2025\nGeno Delfino\nSr Tech, Logistics\nRockwell Collins\n3530 Branscombe Road, P.O. Box KK\nFairfield, CA 94533\nReference No. 24-0088\nDear Mr. Delfino:\nThis letter is in response to your September 25, 2024 email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the selective\ntesting of combination packagings. Specifically, you request clarification on the application of\nVariations 1 and 4 found in § 178.601(g). You provide a scenario of a packaging originally\ntested with individual coiled detonating cords placed within a size 10” X 17” inner plastic bag\nand ask questions about variations to the package ranging from the articles placed in the\npackaging, to variations in the number of inner packagings, to the type of inner packaging used.\nYou state that for the purpose of the scenarios provided there are no quantity limits or gross mass\nlimits exceeded.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. Does § 178.601(g)(1) allow a combination package originally tested with individual\ncoiled detonating cords, an explosive article, within an inner plastic bag to be used\nwithout further testing for similar but different explosive articles (e.g., cartridges) that are\npackaged in the same manner? You state your understanding is that the variation allowed\nin § 178.601(g)(1)(i) is focused on the inner packaging configuration changes and not\nvariation of the articles contained within.\nA1. Your question pertains to whether the packaging remains suitable for use for similar\narticles other than what was originally was tested. Generally, successfully tested\npackagings may be used for hazardous materials other than those used during testing\nprovided the packaging is appropriate and authorized for the alternative material (e.g., the\nhazardous material and packaging configuration still meet the specific packaging\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nrequirements for explosives in § 173.62). Further, your understanding of Variation 1\nis correct that the permitted variations are focused on the inner packagings of a tested\ncombination package.\nQ2. Would the change to the articles as described in the introductory paragraph and question\nQ1 fall under Variation 4—see § 178.601(g)(4)(iii)?\nA2. No. Section 178.601(g)(4) prescribes variations in outer packagings of a tested design-\ntype combination packaging, provided that the design is maintained, and all requirements\nof paragraph (g)(4) are met. The scenario described is specific to a change in the articles\ncontained within the inner packagings. See answer A1.\nQ3. Can a combination packaging that has been tested with 50 detonating cords and 50\ncartridges, all packaged in the manner as described above (i.e., all packed in individual\n10” X 17” inner plastic bags), instead be packaged with 90 cartridges packaged in the\nsame manner (with zero detonating cords) without further testing?\nA3. Yes. Section 178.601(g)(1)(ii) allows for a lesser number of tested inner packagings,\nprovided that the inner packagings are of an equivalent or smaller size and that sufficient\ncushioning is added to fill void space(s) to prevent significant shifting of the inner\npackagings.\nQ4. For a combination package that is tested with three different inner packaging\nconfigurations of: (1) 50 cartridges in individual inner plastic bags; (2) 50 cartridges\nwrapped individually in foam sheets; and (3) 50 cartridges wrapped in foam sheets which\nare then each placed in a plastic bag, for a total of 150 cartridges — does\n§ 178.601(g)(1)(ii) permit placing 100 of these three variations or 100 of exactly one\nvariation in an identical outer packaging without further testing?\nA4. Yes. See answer A3.\nQ5. With respect to Q4 and the variation in inner packaging described, is it permitted to\nincrease the number of inner packagings more than originally tested without further testing?\nA5. No. Variations 1 and 4 do not allow for a greater number of inner packagings without\nfurther testing.\nQ6. What tests or methodology must a company conduct to be certain that an equivalent level\nof performance is maintained and remain compliant with § 178.601(g)(1) regarding\nvariations in inner packaging? With respect to this question, you note that the majority of\nyour combination packagings have inner plastic bags within fiberboard containers,\nalthough there are occasions where you may instead use foam sheets or bubble wrap to\nwrap the articles. You believe that foam or bubble wrap provides more protection than an\ninner plastic bag and you have reason to believe that if your company initially drop tested\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nwith inner plastic bags only, that substitution of foam or bubble wrap for the plastics\nwould not require additional testing.\nA6. PHMSA does not maintain a list of tests or methodologies your company could conduct\nto be certain that an equivalent level of performance is maintained as specified in\n§ 178.601(g)(1). It is the packaging manufacturer’s responsibility to make sure an\nequivalent level of performance is maintained when using Variation 1. In this case, a\npackaging variation using foam or bubble wrap meeting the pertinent criteria in\n§ 178.601(g)(1)(i), may not require additional testing. However, the person certifying\ncompliance with § 178.601(g)(1) must document and maintain a record that shows the\nmethodology used to determine that the inner packaging maintains an equivalent level of\nperformance. Note that as prescribed in § 178.601(g)(8), in addition to authorized\nvariations, the Associate Administrator may approve the selective testing of packagings\nthat differ only in minor respect from a tested type.\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\nCasey, C.\n24-0088\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nCc: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Interpretation Request of Combination Packaging Variation 1 & 4\nDate: Thursday, September 26, 2024 4:39:49 PM\nHi Alice,\nPlease see the below interpretation request.\nLet us know if you need anything,\n-Breanna\nFrom: Delfino, Geno Collins <Geno.Delfino@collins.com>\nSent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 10:48 AM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nCc: Delfino, Geno Collins <Geno.Delfino@collins.com>\nSubject: Interpretation Request of Combination Packaging Variation 1 & 4\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do\nnot click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content\nis safe.\nTo Whom It May Concern,\nI have a few questions regarding variations of combination packaging and require some clarity\non the matter. This is specifically regarding 49 CFR 178.601(g)(1) and 49 CFR 178.601(g)(4). I\nunderstand there can be quantity limits per EX-letters or 49CFR packaging instructions, as\nwell as gross mass limits of the originally drop tested outer package, but for these below\nquestions please treat them as there being no quantity limits called out and the gross mass\nlimit has not been exceeded.\n1. For example purposes: say we place an individual coiled detonating cord within a size\n10X17” inner plastic bag and then place 50 of those bagged parts within an outer\ncontainer. Under 49 CFR 178.601(g)(1)(i) would it also be compliant to place a different\nparts other than the detonating cord we drop tested the package with (i.e. a cartridge)\nwithin an identical 10X17” inner plastic bag and place 50 of those bagged parts within an\nidentical outer container for transport? I ask for clarification because it seems that this\nsection makes statements about variation of not necessarily the parts contained within\nthe inner packaging, but the inner packaging itself: size (i.e. 10X17), shape (i.e.\nrectangle), construction (i.e. plastic bag), opening (i.e. 10”), closure method (i.e. heat-\nsealed), sufficient additional cushioning, package orientation maintained, and gross\nmass of the originally tested package not exceeded.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Or would packaging this different category of part within the inner packaging fall under\n49 CFR 178.601(g)(4)(iii)? If yes, then in order to cover a variation of parts and bag sizes\nfor transport after drop testing, would you agree it would be best to originally drop test\nthe outer container with the highest quantity of inner plastic bags, the largest size inner\nplastic bag which could also hold the largest size part with the highest mass?\nIf the outer container is drop tested with a quantity of 50 detonating cords in 10X17 inner\nplastic bags and 50 cartridges in 10X17 inner plastic bags, would it be compliant to later\ntransport 90 cartridges packaged in the same manner above under 49 CFR 178.601(g)(1)\n(ii)? This is considering the total count of mixed inner packaging’s was originally tested\nat 100 pieces of 50 cords and 50 cartridges… again all in 10X17 inner bags quantity 100.\nThe gross mass of the outer package would not be exceeded in this example.\nIf for example we package 50 cartridges in 50 individual inner plastic bags, as well as\npackage 50 cartridges wrapped individually in foam sheets, as well as 50 cartridges\nwrapped in foam sheets then placed each in a plastic bag and placed these in one outer\ncontainer, is it compliant under 49 CFR 178.601(g)(1)(ii) to place 100 of one of these\nvariations or 100 of one variation in an identical outer container for transport\nconsidering the outer packaging had 150 parts packaged in 3 different varieties of\npackaging?\nIs it allowable under any variation of packaging to increase the number of inner\npackaging’s for transport (i.e. 100) if the gross mass is not exceeded, but the outer\npackaging was originally tested with a lesser amount of inner packaging’s (i.e. 20)?\nMay you please elaborate as to what tests or methodology we can conduct to be certain\nan equivalent level of performance is maintained to remain compliant as specified in 49\nCFR 178.601(g)(1)? A large majority of our combination packaging’s are inner plastic\nbags within fiberboard containers, although there could be occasions where we may\nuse foam sheets or bubble wrap to wrap the parts instead. Intuitively I feel that if we\ndrop tested with all these variations of inner packaging’s we would be covering\nourselves, but if we chose to test only with inner plastic bags, would it not be common\nsense that foam or bubble wrap obviously provides more protection than an inner\nplastic bag and that explanation suffices?\nAny assistance you can provide is highly appreciated and I thank you for the time an effort\nspent to clarify these regulations for myself and others who seek interpretation.\nThank you,\nGeno Delfino | Sr Tech, Logistics | Shipping Department | Mission Systems\nROCKWELL COLLINS\n3530 Branscombe Road, P.O. Box KK, Fairfield, CA 94533 USA\nTel: +1 707.422.1880 Ext.1471 | Fax: +1 707.425.1684\nGeno.Delfino@collins.com | collinsaerospace.com\nCONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This message may contain proprietary and/or privileged information of Collins Aerospace\nand its affiliated companies. If you are not the intended recipient, please 1) Do not disclose, copy, distribute or use this\nmessage or its contents. 2) Advise the sender by return email. 3) Delete all copies (including all attachments) from your\ncomputer. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.","truncated":false,"body_characters":11559}