Hodgdon Powder Co., Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation 405-Seglon, SC. 2059 Research and 0590 Administration Special Programs Mr. Ben Barrett, P. E. Production & Regulatory Administrator Hodgdon Powder Co., Inc. Post Office Box 2932 MAY 6 1998 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201 Dear Mr. Barrett: This is in response to your letter dated October 15, 1997, requesting clarification of the requirements in § 173.171 (d), under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows: Q1. Can a box tested for one inner package be used without further performance oriented packagings (POP) testing for other inner packages regardless of volume, shape, or materials of construction? Al. Section 173.171 (d) authorizes the intermixing of different inner packaging of tested and approved combination packaging with no further POP testing provided: (1) a 4G fiberboard packaging meeting the Packing Group I performance level is used; (2) all inside containers are packed to prevent movement; and (3) the total net weight of the material (i.e., smokeless powder) in one package does not exceed 16 pounds. In addition, several packages meeting the conditions of § 173.171 (d) may be overpacked together if the 100 pound net mass limitation in § 173.171 (b) is not exceeded. Q2. Can an intermediate packaging (i.e., fiberboard dividers) of a combination packaging be changed without further testing provided the box is filled with packing material to prevent movement? A2. The answer is no. Any change to the originally produced packaging in structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness or manner of construction would result in a different packaging design type, and a different design type requires qualification testing. Q3. Can any variance from the manufacturer's method of closing be allowed?#

Page 2A3. The answer is no. Any change to the originally tested closure of a combination package authorized in § 173.171 would result in a different packaging design type, and a different design type requires qualification testing. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us. • sale z. Mitte 6 Hattie L. Mitchell, Chief Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards .......#

Page 3U.S.Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Special Programs Research and Washington, D.C. 20590 •.. Administration JAN 3 | 1997 Mr. Ben Barrett, P.E. Production & Regulatory Administrator Hodgdon Powder Co., Inc. Post Office Box 2932 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201 : Dear Mr. Barrett: - - This is in response to your letter dated October 2, 1996, regarding the packaging requirements for smokeless powder in 49 CFR 173.171. Specifically, you ask if the 16 pound weight limitation in 49 CFR 173.171(d) also applies to 49 CFR 173.171(a)(b) and (c). The 16 pound weight limitation in 173.171(d) applies only to those packagings authorized under § 173.171(d) and does not apply to those packagings authorized under § 173.171 (a)(b) or (c). Section 173.171(d) authorizes the intermixing of different inner packaging of tested and approved Horador combination packagings with no further testing provided: (1) a 4G fiberboard packagings meeting the Packing Group I performance level is used; (2) all inside containers are packed to prevent movement; and (3) the total net weight of smokeless powder in one package does not exceed 16 pounds. In addition, several packages meeting the conditions of § 173.171(d) may be overpacked together if the 100 pound net mass limitation in § 173.171(b) is not exceeded. I hope this satisfies your inquiry. : Sincerely, :, Like Fling Delmer F. Billings Chief, Regulations Development Office of Hazardous Materials Standards#

Page 410/15/97 16:32 T913 362 1307 HODGDON PONDER →→ OHMS/RSPA/USDOT 4001/001 Betto 113111 HODGDON POWDER CO., INC. file SC: 32,355 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Ben Barrett, P.E. Telephone: 913-362-9455 Production & Regulatory Administrator Fax: 913-362-1307 6231 Robinson Email: ben@98.net Shawnee Mission, KS 66202 Web: www.hodgdon.com TO: Edward Mazzullo, Director COMPANY: DOT RSPA DHM-10 FAX: 202-366-8700 PHONE: 202-366-8553 DATE: October 15, 1997 TIME: 3:00 p.m. # OF PAGES: 1 Dear Mr. Mazzullo: I would appreciate a clarification of 49 CFR 173.171(d). I spoke today with Kevin Boehne of Enforcement, who said he would contact Mr. Delmer Billings about my need for an interpretation. I would like clarification that a box tested for one inner package may be used without further POP testing for any inner package regardless of volume, shape, or materials of construction (within the existing parameters of PG I, no inner package over 8 Ibs., already tested for 4.1, etc.). I know this V5. is the intent of the regulation, of which the history dates back to a 1979 exemption, and Kevin is Битл in agreement. Otherwise we would be faced with POP testing each box about 8 times or moro, Taking and we have about 8 boxes, costing Hodgdon about $20M every 2 years. Kevin did mention that he thought that any intermediate packaging mentioned on the POP cert should be retained, such as fiberboard dividers, because of their effect on structural integrity. I 118,401 would like to address this. Some manufacturers include dividers in their packages, and it would be impossible to mix brands if these are retained. I reason that if the box is filled with packing material as required to prevent movement, structural integrity will be greater than the original design. This is because the inner packing would evenly support all the walls of the box. One last question - can any variance from the manufacturer's method of closing be allowed? In methods are as varied as there are number of manufacturers, so it is kind of hard for distributors other words, tape instead of staples, one type and/or width of tape instead of another, etc. The Losure must to always duplicate this exactly. Could a standard method of closure be authorized, like 2 or 3 be do layers of 2" clear tape (the most common method of closure used in shipping of small packages)? i recommendal Mixed brand shipping has been going on for decades with an excellent safety track record. You have my sincere appreciation for your attention to this matter. Regards, AA Ben Barrett cc: Kevin Boehne, DOT HODGDON® POWDER THE BRAND THAT'S TRUE#

Page 5Lar1ur! GUNGUUL FUNNER PRIORITY: RODEDON HODGDON POWDER CO. INC. Routine FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Priority Fax No.: (913) 362-1307 Message # RE: TO: Eileen Edmonson FAX# 202-366-3753PH.# COMPANY: DOT RSPA DIM-IZ FROM: Ben Banet - DATE: _ 12/15/97 _ TIME:. • No. of Pages to Follow: 2 Thanks for calling about my old interpretation requests from 1993/1994 1 2 sequest pen ding, and if these are ensvered. chos Te priorite is the interpretation of i as d o Charles Betts. This is actually a reformulation of one of the older sequests (used to be 177.838 (g)). second priority is another request cated 10/15/97 for 173.56. I have a verbal on this from Dr. Watson, but i would like it in writin secause we are dealing w/ the Austra told this had been assigned to you. Thanks, Ben Banett. (THANKS A LOT!) Business Olfice: Telephone: (913) 362-9455 Fax: (913) 382-1307 6231 Robinson • P.O. Box 2932 • Shawnee Misslon, KS 66201 Manufacturing: Telephone: (913) 25B-2547 Herington Industrial Park • P.O. Box 270 • Herington, KS 87449#

Page 6GUINEA HODGDON POWDER CO., INC. FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Ben Barrett, P.E Production & Regulatory Administrator Telephone: 913-362-9455 6231 Robinson Fax: 913-362-1307 Shawnee Mission, KS 66202 Email: ben@98.net Web: www.hodgdon.com TO: Edward Mazzullo, Director COMPANY: DOT RSPA DHM-10 FAXED FAX: 202-366-8700 PHONE: 202-366-8553 DATE: October 15, 1997 TIME: 3:00 p.m. # OF PAGES: 1 Dear Mr. Mazzullo: I would appreciate a clarification of 49 CFR 173.171(d). I spoke today with Kevin Boehne of interpretation. Enforcement, who said he would contact Mr. Delmer Billings about my need for an I would like clarification that a box tested for one inner package may be used without further POP testing for any inner package regardless of volume, shape, or materials of construction (within the existing parameters of PG I, no inner package over 8 Ibs., already tested for 4.1, etc.). I know this is the intent of the regulation, of which the history dates back to a 1979 exemption, and Kovin is in agreement. Otherwise we would be faced with POP testing each box about & times or more, and we have about 8 boxes, costing Hodgdon about $20M every 2 years. Kevin did mention that he thought that any intermediate packaging mentioned on the POP cert would like to address this. Some manufacturers include dividers in their packages, and it would should be retained, such as fiberboard dividers, because of their effect on structural integrity. I be impossible to mix brands if these are retained. I reason that if the box is filled with packing material as required to prevent movement, structural integrity will be greater than the original design. This is because the inner packing would evenly support all the walls of the box. One last question - can any variance from the manufacturer's method of closing be allowed? In other words, tape instead of staples, one type and/or width of tape instead of another, etc. The methods are as varied as there are number of manufacturers, so it is kind of hard for distributors to always duplicate this exactly. Could a standard method of closure be authorized, like 2 or 3 layers of 2" clear tape (the most common method of closure used in shipping of small packages)? Mixed brand shipping has been going on for decades with an excellent safety track record. You have my sincere appreciation for your attention to this matter. Regards, AA Ben Barrett cc: Kevin Boehne, DOT HODGDON® POWDER THE BRAND THAT'S TRUE Copy: Dong, Tom, Bob, It, statt, Brandy#

Page 7+ Dati File 173.171 SCi HODGDON POWDER CO., INC. Ben Barrett, P.E. Production & Regulatory Administrator Telephone 913-362-9455 6231 Robinson Fax 913-362-1307 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201 CERTIFIED MAIL October 2, 1996 DHM-10 Standards Edward Mazullo, Director Research & Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation :79.71 400 7th St., S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Re: Request for Interpretation, 173.171, newly revised per HM-222B Dear Mr. Mazullo: I was pleased to see the changes recently made to 173.171 which incorporate 177.838(g) as a new paragraph (d). applying in general to 173.171, whereas it is strictly relating to paragraph (d). Several companies in our industry With regard to paragraph (d), our industry is concerned that inspectors may misinterpret the 16# limitation as have approval from DOT to ship tested combination packages exceeding 16#. I have attached a previous interpretation which addressed this issue when the regulation was still part of 177.838(g). I once had a field inspector tell me that no package could contain more than 16# net, whether it be, for example, a interpretation, and Mr. Delmer Billings agreed that this was not the intended meaning. . 6X4# (24# net) factory package or two 10# combination packages overpacked together. I requested an Since the regulations have changed, I would appreciate a new interpretation which clarifies the following points • with regard to 49 CFR 173.171: 1. The 16# net limitation in paragraph (d) does not apply to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). 2. Paragraph (d) refers to the intermixing of inner packagings of tested and approved combination packagings with no further testing, providing a 4G box is used, all voids are filled with packing material, and a 16# net 3. No prohibition is intended against overpacks containing more than 16# net, up to a 100# net maximum. Sincerely, : Ben Barrett HODGDON® POWDER THE BRAND THAT'S TRUE#