{"operation":"document","citation":"98-0535","title":"Hodgdon Powder Co., Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1998-05-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"98-0535 response to Hodgdon Powder Co., Inc. concerning 173.171.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0535.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0535.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0535","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1998/980535.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n405-Seglon, SC. 2059\nResearch and\n0590\nAdministration\nSpecial Programs\nMr. Ben Barrett, P. E.\nProduction & Regulatory Administrator\nHodgdon Powder Co., Inc.\nPost Office Box 2932\nMAY 6 1998\nShawnee Mission, KS 66201\nDear Mr. Barrett:\nThis is in response to your letter dated October 15, 1997, requesting clarification of the\nrequirements in § 173.171 (d), under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts\n171-180). Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1.\nCan a box tested for one inner package be used without further performance oriented\npackagings (POP) testing for other inner packages regardless of volume, shape, or\nmaterials of construction?\nAl.\nSection 173.171 (d) authorizes the intermixing of different inner packaging of tested and\napproved combination packaging with no further POP testing provided: (1) a 4G\nfiberboard packaging meeting the Packing Group I performance level is used; (2) all inside\ncontainers are packed to prevent movement; and (3) the total net weight of the material\n(i.e., smokeless powder) in one package does not exceed 16 pounds. In addition, several\npackages meeting the conditions of § 173.171 (d) may be overpacked together if the 100\npound net mass limitation in § 173.171 (b) is not exceeded.\nQ2.\nCan an intermediate packaging (i.e., fiberboard dividers) of a combination packaging be\nchanged without further testing provided the box is filled with packing material to prevent\nmovement?\nA2.\nThe answer is no. Any change to the originally produced packaging in structural design,\nsize, material of construction, wall thickness or manner of construction would result in a\ndifferent packaging design type, and a different design type requires qualification testing.\nQ3.\nCan any variance from the manufacturer's method of closing be allowed?\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA3.\nThe answer is no. Any change to the originally tested closure of a combination package\nauthorized in § 173.171 would result in a different packaging design type, and a different\ndesign type requires qualification testing.\nIf we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.\n•\nsale z. Mitte 6\nHattie L. Mitchell, Chief\nRegulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n.......\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nU.S.Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nWashington, D.C.\n20590\n•..\nAdministration\nJAN 3 | 1997\nMr. Ben Barrett, P.E.\nProduction & Regulatory Administrator\nHodgdon Powder Co., Inc.\nPost Office Box 2932\nShawnee Mission, KS 66201\n:\nDear Mr. Barrett:\n- -\nThis is in response to your letter dated October 2, 1996, regarding the packaging requirements for\nsmokeless powder in 49 CFR 173.171. Specifically, you ask if the 16 pound weight limitation in\n49 CFR 173.171(d) also applies to 49 CFR 173.171(a)(b) and (c).\nThe 16 pound weight limitation in 173.171(d) applies only to those packagings authorized under\n§ 173.171(d) and does not apply to those packagings authorized under § 173.171 (a)(b) or (c).\nSection 173.171(d) authorizes the intermixing of different inner packaging of tested and approved\nHorador\ncombination packagings with no further testing provided: (1) a 4G fiberboard packagings meeting\nthe Packing Group I performance level is used; (2) all inside containers are packed to prevent\nmovement; and (3) the total net weight of smokeless powder in one package does not exceed 16\npounds. In addition, several packages meeting the conditions of § 173.171(d) may be overpacked\ntogether if the 100 pound net mass limitation in § 173.171(b) is not exceeded.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiry.\n: Sincerely,\n:,\nLike Fling\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Regulations Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n10/15/97\n16:32\nT913 362 1307\nHODGDON PONDER →→ OHMS/RSPA/USDOT\n4001/001\nBetto\n113111\nHODGDON POWDER CO., INC.\nfile\nSC: 32,355\nFACSIMILE TRANSMISSION\nBen Barrett, P.E.\nTelephone: 913-362-9455\nProduction & Regulatory Administrator\nFax: 913-362-1307\n6231 Robinson\nEmail: ben@98.net\nShawnee Mission, KS 66202\nWeb: www.hodgdon.com\nTO: Edward Mazzullo, Director\nCOMPANY: DOT RSPA DHM-10\nFAX: 202-366-8700\nPHONE: 202-366-8553\nDATE: October 15, 1997 TIME: 3:00 p.m.\n# OF PAGES: 1\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nI would appreciate a clarification of 49 CFR 173.171(d). I spoke today with Kevin Boehne of\nEnforcement, who said he would contact Mr. Delmer Billings about my need for an\ninterpretation.\nI would like clarification that a box tested for one inner package may be used without further POP\ntesting for any inner package regardless of volume, shape, or materials of construction (within the\nexisting parameters of PG I, no inner package over 8 Ibs., already tested for 4.1, etc.). I know this\nV5.\nis the intent of the regulation, of which the history dates back to a 1979 exemption, and Kevin is\nБитл\nin agreement. Otherwise we would be faced with POP testing each box about 8 times or moro,\nTaking\nand we have about 8 boxes, costing Hodgdon about $20M every 2 years.\nKevin did mention that he thought that any intermediate packaging mentioned on the POP cert\nshould be retained, such as fiberboard dividers, because of their effect on structural integrity. I\n118,401\nwould like to address this. Some manufacturers include dividers in their packages, and it would\nbe impossible to mix brands if these are retained. I reason that if the box is filled with packing\nmaterial as required to prevent movement, structural integrity will be greater than the original\ndesign. This is because the inner packing would evenly support all the walls of the box.\nOne last question - can any variance from the manufacturer's method of closing be allowed? In\nmethods are as varied as there are number of manufacturers, so it is kind of hard for distributors\nother words, tape instead of staples, one type and/or width of tape instead of another, etc. The\nLosure must\nto always duplicate this exactly. Could a standard method of closure be authorized, like 2 or 3\nbe do\nlayers of 2\" clear tape (the most common method of closure used in shipping of small packages)?\ni recommendal\nMixed brand shipping has been going on for decades with an excellent safety track record. You\nhave my sincere appreciation for your attention to this matter.\nRegards,\nAA\nBen Barrett\ncc: Kevin Boehne, DOT\nHODGDON® POWDER\nTHE BRAND THAT'S TRUE\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nLar1ur!\nGUNGUUL FUNNER\nPRIORITY:\nRODEDON\nHODGDON POWDER CO. INC.\nRoutine\nFACSIMILE TRANSMISSION\nPriority\nFax No.: (913) 362-1307\nMessage #\nRE:\nTO:\nEileen Edmonson\nFAX# 202-366-3753PH.#\nCOMPANY: DOT RSPA DIM-IZ\nFROM:\nBen Banet\n-\nDATE: _\n12/15/97\n_ TIME:.\n• No. of Pages to Follow: 2\nThanks for calling about my old interpretation\nrequests from 1993/1994 1\n2\nsequest pen ding, and if these are ensvered.\nchos\nTe priorite is the interpretation of i as d\no Charles Betts. This is actually a reformulation\nof one of the older sequests (used to be 177.838 (g)).\nsecond priority is another request cated 10/15/97\nfor 173.56. I have a verbal on this from\nDr. Watson, but i would like it in writin\nsecause we are dealing w/ the Austra\ntold this had been assigned to you.\nThanks, Ben Banett.\n(THANKS A LOT!)\nBusiness Olfice:\nTelephone: (913) 362-9455 Fax: (913) 382-1307\n6231 Robinson • P.O. Box 2932 • Shawnee Misslon, KS 66201\nManufacturing:\nTelephone: (913) 25B-2547\nHerington Industrial Park • P.O. Box 270 • Herington, KS 87449\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nGUINEA\nHODGDON POWDER CO., INC.\nFACSIMILE TRANSMISSION\nBen Barrett, P.E\nProduction & Regulatory Administrator\nTelephone: 913-362-9455\n6231 Robinson\nFax: 913-362-1307\nShawnee Mission, KS 66202\nEmail: ben@98.net\nWeb: www.hodgdon.com\nTO: Edward Mazzullo, Director\nCOMPANY: DOT RSPA DHM-10\nFAXED\nFAX: 202-366-8700 PHONE: 202-366-8553\nDATE: October 15, 1997 TIME: 3:00 p.m.\n# OF PAGES: 1\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nI would appreciate a clarification of 49 CFR 173.171(d). I spoke today with Kevin Boehne of\ninterpretation.\nEnforcement, who said he would contact Mr. Delmer Billings about my need for an\nI would like clarification that a box tested for one inner package may be used without further POP\ntesting for any inner package regardless of volume, shape, or materials of construction (within the\nexisting parameters of PG I, no inner package over 8 Ibs., already tested for 4.1, etc.). I know this\nis the intent of the regulation, of which the history dates back to a 1979 exemption, and Kovin is\nin agreement. Otherwise we would be faced with POP testing each box about & times or more,\nand we have about 8 boxes, costing Hodgdon about $20M every 2 years.\nKevin did mention that he thought that any intermediate packaging mentioned on the POP cert\nwould like to address this. Some manufacturers include dividers in their packages, and it would\nshould be retained, such as fiberboard dividers, because of their effect on structural integrity. I\nbe impossible to mix brands if these are retained. I reason that if the box is filled with packing\nmaterial as required to prevent movement, structural integrity will be greater than the original\ndesign. This is because the inner packing would evenly support all the walls of the box.\nOne last question - can any variance from the manufacturer's method of closing be allowed? In\nother words, tape instead of staples, one type and/or width of tape instead of another, etc. The\nmethods are as varied as there are number of manufacturers, so it is kind of hard for distributors\nto always duplicate this exactly. Could a standard method of closure be authorized, like 2 or 3\nlayers of 2\" clear tape (the most common method of closure used in shipping of small packages)?\nMixed brand shipping has been going on for decades with an excellent safety track record. You\nhave my sincere appreciation for your attention to this matter.\nRegards,\nAA\nBen Barrett\ncc: Kevin Boehne, DOT\nHODGDON® POWDER\nTHE BRAND THAT'S TRUE\nCopy: Dong, Tom, Bob, It, statt, Brandy\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n+\nDati\nFile 173.171\nSCi\nHODGDON POWDER CO., INC.\nBen Barrett, P.E.\nProduction & Regulatory Administrator\nTelephone 913-362-9455\n6231 Robinson\nFax 913-362-1307\nShawnee Mission, KS 66201\nCERTIFIED MAIL\nOctober 2, 1996\nDHM-10 Standards\nEdward Mazullo, Director\nResearch & Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n:79.71\n400 7th St., S. W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nRe: Request for Interpretation, 173.171, newly revised per HM-222B\nDear Mr. Mazullo:\nI was pleased to see the changes recently made to 173.171 which incorporate 177.838(g) as a new paragraph (d).\napplying in general to 173.171, whereas it is strictly relating to paragraph (d). Several companies in our industry\nWith regard to paragraph (d), our industry is concerned that inspectors may misinterpret the 16# limitation as\nhave approval from DOT to ship tested combination packages exceeding 16#.\nI have attached a previous interpretation which addressed this issue when the regulation was still part of 177.838(g).\nI once had a field inspector tell me that no package could contain more than 16# net, whether it be, for example, a\ninterpretation, and Mr. Delmer Billings agreed that this was not the intended meaning. .\n6X4# (24# net) factory package or two 10# combination packages overpacked together. I requested an\nSince the regulations have changed, I would appreciate a new interpretation which clarifies the following points\n•\nwith regard to 49 CFR 173.171:\n1. The 16# net limitation in paragraph (d) does not apply to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).\n2. Paragraph (d) refers to the intermixing of inner packagings of tested and approved combination packagings\nwith no further testing, providing a 4G box is used, all voids are filled with packing material, and a 16# net\n3. No prohibition is intended against overpacks containing more than 16# net, up to a 100# net maximum.\nSincerely,\n:\nBen Barrett\nHODGDON® POWDER\nTHE BRAND THAT'S TRUE","truncated":false,"body_characters":11865}