{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0076","title":"Berry Packaging of SC, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-10-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0076 response to Berry Packaging of SC, Inc. concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0076.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0076.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0076","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000076.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n.S. Departmen\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nResearch and\nf Transportatior\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSpecial Programs\nAdministratior\nOCT 24 2000\nMr. Ron Stanley\nRef. No: 00-0076\nBerry Packaging of SC, Inc.\n5770 North Blackstock Road\nSpartanburg, SC 29303\nDear Mr. Stanley:\nThis is in response to your letter of February 29, 2000, requesting clarification of the phrase \"virtually\nidentical\" as it pertains to UN standard packagings prescribed in the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You describe a scenario where your customer has a company\nconstruct a fiberboard box and test the design at its testing laboratory. This customer would now like\nyour company to construct a fiberboard box that meets the standards for the box that was already\ntested and certified by your competitor's testing laboratory. The only characteristics of the fiberboard\nthat are described in the test report are the Mullen burst strength, the flute, the size and the style. Your\nquestions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1. May the fiberboard box manufactured by your company be considered \"virtually identical\" to the\nfiberboard box used in the tested packaging if it meets all the characteristics described in the test\nreport?\nThe answer is no. The test report you describe does not provide enough information on the fiberboard\nbox to make the determination that your fiberboard box would be virtually identical. To be identical it\nmust be established that the two boxes are the same with respect to structural design, size, material of\nconstruction, wall thickness and manner of construction. Unless you have sufficient information to\nduplicate the box as produced and tested, you would be producing a different packaging that must be\ndesign tested. Mullen burst strength, type of flute, size and style are not sufficiently descriptive to make\nthis determination. In addition, in order to substitute fiberboard, the test documentation from the testing\nlaboratory may not identify the fiberboard in terms of a specific manufacturer, and the agreement\nbetween the manufacturer, as identified through the certification marking, and the testing laboratory may\nnot preclude substitution of components without recertification.\nQ2. We have several linerboard suppliers. If we have a packaging tested and certified using linerboard\nmade by one supplier, can we use another supplier's linerboard as long as we can verify that the new\nsupplier's linerboard has the same characteristics as the original linerboard? By matching the\ncharacteristics listed in the Certification Testing Document, are we not virtually identical?\n000076\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n-\n-2-\nLinerboard from various manufacturers may be used if the linerboard is not changed, i.e., there is no\nchange in structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness and manner of construction.\nletermination\nAgain, Mullen burst strength, type of flute, size and style are not sufficiently descriptive to make this\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nLaVallE\nBERRY PACKAGING OF SC LIC.\nEEL 57O NORTH BLACKSTOCK ROAD • SPARTANBURO, SC 8305\n(864) 574-1450 • FAX (864) 576-8124\nCaroline Whitehead\nFebruary 29, 2000\nDepartment of Transportation\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n400 Seventh Street, S. W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Caroline:\nThis is a follow-up to a discussion we had several weeks ago concerning the phrase \"virtually\nidentical\" for corrugated packaging (4G Fibreboard boxes).\nWe are a corrugated sheet plant and one of our customers uses HAZMAT certified boxes. These\nboxes are currently supplied by a competitor. The combination packages were tested by my\ncompetitor's testing facility. They are certified for UN-DOT HAZMAT testing and their\ncertification number is on the box.\nQuestion 1: In my customer's Certification Testing Document, the only characteristics that are\nused to describe any of the corrugated materials are the Mullen burst strength, the flute, the size,\nand the style. For example, 275# RSC, C flute/manufacturer's joint glued inside, and lists\nthe outside size. My customer uses an inner partition that is only identified as 200# C flute 6\n1/8 × 13 15/16. I believe we agreed that if my company makes an exact copy of the partition\n(size and corrugation direction) and uses 200# C flute, we would be virtually identical. As long\nas we are able to match exactly the characteristics listed in the certification testing (ie Mullen,\nflute, style etc.), we are in compliance. Please confirm that we are in compliance with \"virtually\nidentical\".\nQuestion 2: Since we are a corrugated sheet plant, we have several linerboard suppliers. If we\nhave packaging tested and certified using linerboard made by one supplier, can we use another\nsupplier's linerboard as long as we can verify that the new supplier's linerboard has the same\ncharacteristics (ie. ECT, Mullen, flute etc.) that match the original linerboard? By matching the\ncharacteristics listed in the Certification Testing Document, are we not \"virtually identical?\nI want to again thank you for your help.\nSincerely,\nHazardous Materials Coordinator","truncated":false,"body_characters":5192}