{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0158","title":"Lapoint Industries — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-09-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0158 response to Lapoint Industries concerning 178.801.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0158.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0158.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0158","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000158.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nf Transportatio\nS. Departmer\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nSpecial Programs\nResearch anc\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nAdministration\nDEC\n8 2004\nMr. John H. Lapoint\nRef. No.: 00-0158\nPresident\nPao. Box dustries\nLewiston, Maine 04241-1667\n48 Commercial Street\nDear Mr. Lapoint:\nThis is in further reference to your letter dated May 23, 2000 and our reply dated September 21,\n2000, regarding the proper description and marking of a composite intermediate bulk container\n(IBC) under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically,\nyou asked whether your packaging as described meets the definition of a \"11HH2\" composite\nUpon further evaluation, we have determined that the packaging referenced in your\nMay 23, 2000 letter does not conform to the specification for a composite IBC, and, thus, may\nnot be marked with the IBC code designation, \"11HH2.\" As specified in\n§ 178.706(b), rigid plastic IBCs consist of a rigid plastic body, which may have structural\nequipment, together with appropriate service equipment. The outer plastic material of your\npackaging acquires its rigidity only when it is bonded to a rigid, multi-wall, corrugated support.\nIt is the opinion of this Office that a flexible plastic material bonded to fiberboard is not a rigid\nplastic material as specified in § 178.706, and does not exhibit strength relative to its capacity\nlevel of safety equivalent to the United Nations (UN) 11HH2 specification, or another IBC\nand the service it is required to perform. If you can demonstrate that your packaging provides a\napplying for an exemption are found in § 107.105 of the HMR.\nspecification, you may wish to apply for an exemption for your packaging. The procedures for\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\nlilian 7. Magall\nEdward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\nИННИИ IN\n178.801 (1)\n000158\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nLapnaisties\nP.O. Box 1667\nLewiston, Maine\n48 Commercial Street\nMay 23, 2000\n04241-1667\nfax: 207-777-3177\ntel: 207-777-3100\nMr. Edward Mazzallo\nwww.lapointindustries.com\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nStecens.\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\n400 Seventh Street.SW\n$178 801(1)\nUnited States of America\nWashington, DC 20590\n00-0158\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nThe purpose of this letter is to follow up my recent visit with several of your colleagues\nbelieve our container line fits the requirements for composite packaging (11HH2).\nTherefore, we desire to mark our products as such.\nLapoint Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of both rigid and flexible intermediate bulk\nrigid containers differ significantly in use, design and application. The product selling\ncontainers (FIBC), designed to meet the specific needs of our valued customers. The\nprices differ greatly as well, depending on configuration and intended use.\nThe \"Waste Wrangler\" product is a stand-alone, rigid container. Once filled, the\ncontainer will form a rectangular facing, which markedly resembles a box. Although this\nome, we believe our packaging accurately and explicitly meets every definition of\nroduct might not meet the traditional or stereotypical perception of a box, according to\n\"composite packaging, plastic, rigid and box.\" We base this on our understanding of the\nlanguage used in the IMDG Code and 49CFR.\nWhen I came to Washington, I hoped that bringing an actual container to demonstrate\nthis would bring about greater clarity and enlightenment to those unfamiliar with how our\nwould give everyone at the meeting a hands-on experience with our product. Hopefully,\nproduct performs in the field. We have found that an actual unit aids one to\nconceptualize and visualize the product's intended use in the field, as well as to reveal the\nsignificant differences in design, function and application from FIBCs. These other\ncontainers are known as \"supersacks\" or \"bulk bags,\" as compared to our \"Waste\nWrangler\".\nwww.ufstrainrite.cor\nJ.F. Strainrite Inc\nWrangler Corporation\nwww.wranglerzone.com\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nPage 2\ninner and outer packaging form an integral and inseparable bond. This construction\nTo further clarify the difference between these types of containers, the \"Waste Wrangler\"\nprotects the inner packaging from deformation and failure, making the inner and outer\ncomponents co-dependent. The Waste Wrangler's self-standing and rigid frame affords\nthe customer the ability to fill the container without any support equipment. Once filled,\nthe trame will form a rigid outer shell. This sharply contrasts to a flexible intermediate\nrounds out like a balloon or sack.\nbulk container, which requires structural support to fill the container and, once filled,\nAfter our team of packaging experts delved into the definitions of \"a composite\npackaging, box, rigid and plastic,\" we believe our research supports our position in\ncalling the Waste Wrangler a composite packaging.\nIn order to clarify our stance further, I would like to quote these definitions directly from\neither the IMDG Code or 49CFR. The following definition underscores the basis for\nwhich we arrived at calling our container a composite packaging, as follows:\nAs 1 previously stated, our packaging consists of an inner lightweight plastic material\nThe IMDG Code defines an \"Outer Packaging\" as follows:\nmaterials, cushioning and any other components necessary to contain and protect inner receptacles or inner\n\"... is the outer protection of a composite or combination packaging together with any absorbent\npackagings.\"\nWe believe the combination of our heavyweight outer plastic material, coupled with the\nrigid, multi-wall corrugation support meets this criterion.\nThe next definition we turned to was the definition of a box. A box, as defined in the\nIMDG Code - page 0507 and confirmed in 49CFR 171.8, means\nreconstituted wood, fiberboard, plastic, or other suitable material. Holes appropriate to the size and use of\n..a packaging with complete rectangular or polygonal faces, made of metal, wood, plywood,\npermitted as long as they do not compromise the integrity of the packaging during transportation, and are\nthe packaging, for purposes such as ease of handling or opening, or to meet classification requirements, are\nnot otherwise prohibited in this subchapter.\"\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nPage 3\nThe IMIDG Code uses similar language when defining a box. Not only does our\nsquare when full.\npackaging have a rectangular face when empty, the packaging is unmistakably rigid and\nThe definition of a plastic means \"polymeric materials\" (i.e., plastic or rubber). This\nmaterial used in our products.\ndefinition is also used in defining an FIBC, so we believe that this definition covers the\nFinally, the compelling piece of information solidifying our position was based on the\nfollowing IMDG Code statement under \"Equivalences\". Quoting directly, it says\nuse of packagings having specifications different from those recommended in this Code, provided\n\"In order to take into account progress in science and technology, there is no objection to the\nthat they are at least equally effective, acceptable to authorities concerned and able successfully to\nwithstand the tests described in Annex 1 to this Code. Moreover, methods of testing, other than\nthose described in Annex 1 to this Code, are acceptable provided that they be at least equally\nOur packaging experts interpret this to mean that the governing bodies of DOT and\nInstead, they focus their efforts in creating performance standards all containers must\nIMDG recognize the importance of encouraging innovation and do not stifle creativity.\nconform to and allowing the container manufacturers the latitude to determine the design\ntype based on the definitions outlined above.\npromulgating creative thought to ultimately meet the future needs of global markets. We\nWe concur with the DOT and IMDG Code position in promoting, fostering and\nhave witnessed first-hand the efforts to reduce packaging waste all over the world and, in\nparticular, the United States of America. The disposal cost for spent packaging is\nclimbing at unprecedented rates, and the urgency to reuse packagings has heightened\nexponentially. Our patented products meet this future need right now and exceed the\npackaging standards for a composite and flexible IBC. We look to you to give us your\nconcurrence with this very important issue.\nplan our next move. Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration. We look\nWe would appreciate your formal, written response as soon as possible, so that we can\nforward to hearing from you very soon.","truncated":false,"body_characters":8562}