{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0216","title":"Greif Bros. Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2001-02-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0216 response to Greif Bros. Corporation concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0216.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0216.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0216","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000216.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n5. Departmer\nTransportatic\nashington, D\necial Prograr\nsearch an\nAdministration\nFEB 1 2 2001\nMr. Gerald A. Gordon, Sc.D\nRef. No: 00-0216\nRegulatory Compliance Specialist\nGreif Bros. Corporation\n245 Eisenhower Lane South\nLombard, Illinois 60148\nDear Mr. Gordon:\nThis is in response to your August 2, 2000, letter requesting clarification regarding what constitutes a\n\"different packaging\" under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nSpecifically you ask whether building a barrier into the sidewall of an otherwise identical fiber drum\nrequires a new design qualification test. You provided information to support your belief that such a\nchange should not require testing as a \"different packaging.\"\nIt is your position that as long as critical mechanical and structural properties of the combined sidewall\nremain essentially the same, minor variations in sidewall composition (e.g., the presence of very thin\nlayers of polyethylene or aluminum foil) should not cause the drum to be considered a \"different\npackaging.\"\nWe disagree. You are changing both the design and manner of construction of the drum by\nsandwiching layers of polyethylene or aluminum foil between the layers of fiberboard. The drum is a\n\"different packaging\" as defined in § 178.601 and, therefore, design qualification testing is required. If,\nhowever, a polyethylene or aluminum foil barrier is applied to the inside surface of a packaging, it is\nconsidered a surface treatment and is not considered a different packaging.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\nEdward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n000216\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n245 Eisenhower Lane South\nLombard, Illinois 60148\nGREIF\nTel.\nFax:\n(630) 620-3427\n(630) 620-3400\nwww.greif.com\nBROS. CORPORATION\nAugust 2, 2000\n517860/\nMr. Robert A. Monniere, Attorney\nOffice of the Chief Counsel\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\n00-0216\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Monniere:\nI am writing in response to your letter of May 16, 2000, which offered a compromise in\nlight of Greif's corrective actions in areas pertaining to DOT's Notice of Proposed\nViolation of January 11, 1999, but also raised the issue of the definition of the material of\nconstruction of a fibre drum sidewall, and whether building a barrier into the sidewall of an\notherwise identical drum necessitates a new design qualification test. Per our telephone\nconversation of this morning, Greif Bros. Corporation is not prepared to accept the\ncompromise offered by the Acting Chief Counsel, until this issue has been resolved.\nIn collaboration with our Technical Advisor, Gordon Rousseau of HMT Associates, we\nhave prepared a discussion of this issue, which is attached. We hope this discussion will\npersuade DOT that as long as critical mechanical and structural properties of the\ncombined sidewall remain essentially the same, minor variations in sidewall composition\n(e.g., the presence of very thin layers of polyethylene or aluminum foil) should not cause\nthe drum to be considered \"different\", requiring a new design qualification test.\nIt is my understanding that as a result of our rejection of the compromise offer and the\nsubmission our discussion of the issue, resolution of this matter will be put on hold while\nDOT considers our arguments and decides what action it should take.\nThank you for your advice and assistance in this matter.\nRegulatory Compliance Specialist\nCc:\nGordon Rousseau\nGeof Eaton\nLeigh Evans\nC. J. Guilbeau\nPeter Apostoluk\nKarl Svendsen\nJoe Grebe\nDOT-17-ET","truncated":false,"body_characters":3616}