{"operation":"document","citation":"25-0100","title":"Precision Impacts — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2026-01-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"25-0100 response to Precision Impacts concerning 178.35, 178.70.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-25-0100.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-25-0100.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-25-0100","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2026-02/250100.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nJanuary 21, 2026\nHeather Morton\nDirector – Planning and Logistics\nPrecision Impacts\n721 Richard Street\nMiamisburg, OH 45342\nReference No. 25-0100\nDear Ms. Morton:\nThis letter is in response to your July 16, 2025 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to packaging testing,\nwitnessing, and verification. Specifically, you ask whether recordings of testing satisfy\nwitnessing requirements?\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. Can the use of camera systems or structured data collection submitted to an Independent\nInspection Agency (IIA) satisfy the witnessing obligations of §§ 178.35 and 178.70 under\nInternational Organization for Standardization (ISO) and Department of Transportation\n(DOT) specifications?\nA1. No. The testing must be witnessed by the IIA at the time of testing, physically present at\nthe location of testing. Submitting recorded material would not satisfy the requirements\nof the HMR for IIA witnessing and test verification.\nQ2. If these systems are allowable, what protocols or controls would need to be in place to\nensure such technology-supported submission maintains the standard of objectivity,\ntraceability, and technical rigor required by the standards?\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA2. See A1.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nAlexander Wolcott\nActing Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nJacobson, N.\n25-0100\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Baker, Yul (PHMSA)\nCc: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Request for Interpretation Regarding Remote Witnessing and Verification under ISO 11118 and 49 CFR 178.71\nDate: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 12:16:55\nHi Yul,\nPlease see the below interpretation request.\nLet us know if you need anything,\n-Breanna\nFrom: Heather Morton <heather.morton@precisionimpacts.com>\nSent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 8:48 AM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nCc: Pascal, Irwin (PHMSA) <irwin.pascal@dot.gov>; Kaltenegger, Jorg (PHMSA)\n<jorg.kaltenegger@dot.gov>\nSubject: Request for Interpretation Regarding Remote Witnessing and Verification under ISO 11118 and 49\nCFR 178.71\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not\nclick on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nDear Sir or Madam,\nOn behalf of Precision Impacts LLC, I respectfully request an interpretation from the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regarding the use of modern\ntechnology to fulfill and support third-party witnessing and verification responsibilities under\nISO and DOT specifications, which are incorporated by reference in Title 49 of the Code of\nFederal Regulations.\nSpecifically, we seek clarification on whether data collection systems or camera-based\ntechnologies may be used to capture the required inspection, witnessing and verification\ninformation, which would then be submitted to the certified Independent Inspection Agency\n(IIA) for review and issuance of the third-party verification report.\nOur intention is not to replace the role of the IIA, but rather to facilitate their evaluation\nthrough secure, transparent, and accurate technological means, while still ensuring full\ncompliance with ISO and DOT provisions. The goal is to maintain the integrity, impartiality,\nand safety assurance functions expected of the IIA process while leveraging advancements in\ndata recording and digital transmission to streamline the workflow.\nRegulatory Distinction: Witnessing vs. Verification We understand that DOT regulations make\nan intentional distinction between “verification” and “witnessing,” as demonstrated in 49 CFR\n§ 178.71(c)(3):\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n“The production IIA must witness the required inspections and verifications on the pressure\nreceptacles during the production run.”\nThis requirement implies an on-site, real-time presence. By contrast, the terms “verification”\nand “conformity assessment” found in ISO 11118 and DOT-39 (49 CFR § 178.65) focus on the\nvalidation of data and inspection results but do not explicitly require the IIA to be physically\npresent. These specifications emphasize outcome-based safety performance, leaving room\nfor modern, technology-based data review methods.\nSpecific Examples and Proposed Alternatives\nWe respectfully propose two use cases where technology could meet or exceed the intent of\ncurrent witnessing requirements, enhancing traceability and quality assurance:\n1. Pressure Test Witnessing\nCFR Reference: 49 CFR § 178.71(p)(2)(i)\n“The IIA must witness the complete pressure test on each cylinder.”\nProposed Method: High-resolution video and digitally instrumented pressure testing\nequipment can capture each cylinder test, with time stamps and data logged. These\nrecordings would be submitted to the IIA for review and certification. The system allows\nprecise traceability, removes observational ambiguity, and creates a permanent digital audit\ntrail.\n2. Mechanical Properties Test Witnessing\nCFR Reference: 49 CFR § 178.71(o)(2)\n“The IIA must witness all mechanical tests, including tensile, yield, elongation, and impact\ntests.”\nProposed Method: Tensile and impact test machines can be paired with high-speed video and\ndata capture systems to record test forces, elongation, failure points, and conditions in real\ntime. This footage, tagged to test samples, can be securely submitted to the IIA for\ncompliance review, mirroring the level of assurance provided by in-person observation.\nComparative Regulatory Framework\nRegulation\nMention\n\"Witness\"\nPhysical Presence\nRequired\nTechnological\nFlexibility\n49 CFR § 178.71 Yes Implied\nNo explicit\nallowance\n49 CFR § 178.65 (DOT-39) No Not Stated More flexible\nISO 11118:2015/2025 No Not Stated Yes\nThis table illustrates that, unlike 49 CFR § 178.71, neither ISO 11118 nor DOT-39 explicitly\nrequire physical witnessing, suggesting that digital submissions could be a reasonable\nalternative when properly secured and audited.\nRequest for Interpretation\nWe respectfully seek PHMSA’s interpretation on the following:\n1. Whether the use of camera systems or structured data collection submitted to an IIA\non-site, would satisfy the witnessing obligations of the third-party verification\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nrequirements under ISO and DOT specifications.\n2. If allowable, what protocols or controls would need to be in place to ensure such\ntechnology-supported submission maintains the standard of objectivity, traceability,\nand technical rigor required by the standard.\nWe appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to your guidance on how\nsuch a use of technology may be integrated within the existing regulatory framework while\nupholding public safety and regulatory compliance.\nThank you for your time and consideration.\nHeather Morton\nDirector – Planning and Logistics\nMain: 937.530.8250 x1006\nPrecision Impacts\n721 Richard Street\nMiamisburg, OH 45342\nHeather.morton@precisionimpacts.com\nwww.precisionimpacts.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":7247}