{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0269","title":"Cadbury Schweppes — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2001-07-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0269 response to Cadbury Schweppes concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0269.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0269.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0269","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000269.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n7-\n•\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nResearch and\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nJUL\n2 2001\nMr. William Eaton\nPackaging Development Engineer\nReference No. 00-0269\nCadbury Schweppes\n30 Trefoil Drive\nTrumbull, CT 06611\nDear Mr. Eaton:\nThis is in response to your letter and conversations with a member of my staff asking if 13\ndifferent non-bulk combination packages your company is using may be marked with their own\nspecification to indicate the heaviest weight and most severe packing group.\nYou stated the packages consist of using the same outer fiberboard box and various inner bottles\nmade of polyethylene therephthalate or high density polyethylene up to 1-gallon in size filled\nwith a Class 3 (flammable), PG II, or Class 8 (corrosive), PG III, material. You also stated that,\nalthough the packaging configurations meet the conditions prescribed in Variation 1 of\n§ 178.601(g)(1), your company tested each packaging configuration and that each passed the UN\nperformance tests.\nBased on the information contained in your letter, the answer is yes. Each tested package may be\nmarked once to denote the most stringent tested packing group performance level and maximum\ngross mass. For future reference, all tested configurations may be included on a single test\nreport.\nI hope this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\nHette Z. Mittell\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nEdmonson\nCadbury Schweppes\n178.601\nGLOBAL BEVERAGES\nSeptember 14, 2000\nYarnas TECHNOLOGY CENTER\nlesnna packaging:\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\n00 - 0269\n400 7* Street S.W.\nU.S. DOT/RSPA (DHM-10)\nWashington, D.C. 20590-001\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nI am writing to request confidential interpretation and confirmation of proper marking for a specific set of\ncircumstances related to class 3, packing group Il, combination packaging.\nWe have a series of UN Standard combination packaging (Kits) using the same outer corrugated\ntested in their actual shipping configuration and passed the required tests. Below are pack\npackage and various inner packaging containing Class 3 PG I hazardous products. All have been\nIn some cases, not all of the inner packages contain hazardous materials, however we treat each as\ncontigurations that cover the various inner packs at the highest usage level. (P# indicates part number)\nsuch tor test purposes to determine the performance of the actual finished shipping unit.\nPET- Polyethylene Therephthalate\nHDPE- High Density Polyethylene\n1. P1-2x1 gal PET+P2-2x0.5gal PET+P3-2x4oz HDPE\n2. P1-2x1gal PET + P-2 2x32oz PET\nP1-2x1 gal PET+P2-2x0.5gal PET+P3-2x32oz PET (Covers #1 & #2, but tested others for assurance\n4. P1-2x1 gal PET + P2-1x5L HDPE\npurposes)\n5. P1-1x1gal HDPE + P2-3x2.0L HDPE\n6. P1-4X3.0L HDPE + P2-4x8oz HDPE\n7. P1-4x1gal HDPE + P2-4x4oz HDPE +4x60gm bag non haz powder\n8. 4x1 gal HDPE + 4x 0.81 # bags non haz powder\n9. 2x1 gal PET + 1x8.5#+1x4.49#+2×10.36# bags non haz powder\n10. P1-2x1gal PET + P2- 2x16oz PET + 2x2.82#+2×2.0#+2x1.7# bags non haz powder\n11. P1-1x.5gal PET+P2-1x1 galPET+5.36##+ 2.83#+ 13.08# bags non haz powder\n12. 4x1 gal PET\n13. P1-1x320z PET + P2-1x320z PET+ P3-3×1 gal PET °\nIn some cases, we include non-hazardous bagged dry ingredients, which are non-reactive and help fill\nvariation 1 provisions, however we have choose to test each for assurance of performance.\nany voids to keep the unit tight and stable. Also several of the inner packages could fall under the\n30 Trefoil Drive\nTrumbull, Connecticut 06611 203.459.3000 tel 203.459.3109 fax\nA MEMBER OF THE CADBURY SCHWEPPES ple GROUP\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n• Page 2\nSeptember 14, 2000\nI am interpreting the DOT regulations for marking as follows. Within the UN marking is the maximum\nsame with the exception of the weight tested. We are proposing to use a single marking that indicates\nweight tested tor that outer package. For all of the above noted tests, the UN Marking would be the\nno purpose to my knowledge and should not be required if the level of testing covers the most severe\nthe heaviest tested package weight. Having an individual UN marking for each pack tested would serve\neasy and quick access to necessary details of tested components.\npacking group. We also include on the bottom flap reference to each UN test report number to allow\nsingle outer package and using individual UN markings for each would take up an entire side of the\nThe reason for approaching this issue in this manner is that we have 13 different test packs for the\n-boX,-hiS-space is necessary for product, hazard and-instructional-labeling for-proper handling-and --\nstorage. I have spoken to Diane Levalle at the Hazmat Service Center as well as other contacts. Most\nreceived responses from local enforcement agents indicating a UN marking for each test pack needs to\nare in agreement with my interpretation, however our supplier is not in agreement as they have\ninformation in each line with the exception of the weight of the tested package.\nappear on the box. This would equate to having up to13 UN markings with essentially the same\nabove situation, please provide details on properly marking our shippers for the above circumstances.\nThank you in advance for your response.\nSincerely,\nWilliam Eaton\nPackaging Development Engineer\nwre...\n-\n-\nEric Crouch\nCo:\nJack Neill\nDenise Leflebvre\nGene Metti\nKaren O'Toole\nKathy Stohldrier\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nTELEPHONIC CONVERSATION RECORD\nSpecialist Placing Call: Eileen Edmonson\nROUTING\nDate of Call: June 1, 2001 8:56 am voice mail\nSYMBOL\nINT\nmessage & 11:15 am conversation\nPerson (s) Contacted:\nWilliam (Bill) Eaton,\nPackaging Development Engineer, Cadbury Schweppes,\n30 Trefoil Drive, Trumbull, CT 06611, 203-459-3136,\n& 203-459-3109\nRegarding: The configuration of his tested packages\nVariation 1.\nand if all the variations met 178.601(g) (1),\nDate of Incoming Letter: 9/14/00\nSpecific Subject (including section #'s and key\nwords) :\nHis company has put together a variety of\ncombination packagings and tested them all. He\nwants to know if he can mark the package for its\nhighest design weight and the severest hazard it\nwas tested for. He seems to be under the\nith the UN specification markina for eac\nmpression that he must mark the outside packag\npackaging configuration he tested.\nSummary: Mr. Eaton said all of the configurations of his\ncompany's UN\nspecitication packaging where a smaller inner.\n178.601 (g) (1).\npackaging is used meet the conditions listed in Variation 1 of $\nMI. Eaton said in some cases inner packagings\ncontaining non-hazmat will be laid across the top of packages\ncontaining hazmat, but that all of these packaging configurations\nwere tested and meet UN specification.\nHe acknowledged that since\nhis company tested all of their packaging configurations, they\nreally didn't need the selective testing rules.\ncustomer is insisting the HMR requires Cadbury Schweppes to mark\neach fiberboard box with the UN specification for all the\nconfigurations for which it was\nsuccessfully tested. He wanted\nsomething from us in writing to\nrequirement.\nsay this was not an HMR\nComments for Further Action: Finish draft & forward to\nsupervisor.\nSpecialist Signature:\nDate:\n6/1/01\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nTELEPHONIC CONVERSATION RECORD\nSpecialist Placing Call: Eileen Edmonson\nROUTING\nDate of Call: 12/05/00\nSYMBOL\nINT\nPerson (s) Contacted: William Eaton, Packaging\nDrive,\nDeveLopment Engineer, Cadbury Schweppes, 30 Trefoil\n3109.\nTrumbull, CI 06611, 203-459-3136, & 203-459-\nRegarding: Information needed to answer his letter\nDate of Incoming Letter: 9/14/00, 2:15 pm\nSpecific Subject (including section #'s and key\nwords): His company has put together a variety of\ncombination packagings and tested them all. He\nwants to know if he can mark the package for its\nhighest design weight and the severest hazard it\nwas tested for.\nHe seems to be under the\nimpression that he must mark the outside package\nwith the UN specification marking for each\npackaging configuration he tested.\nSummary: MI. Eaton said he inner packagings are made of one of\npolyethylene), a variety of sizes, and similar in design. He said\ntwo types of plastic (polyethylene therephthalate and high density\nboth plastics perform the same, that is they have equal resistance\nto the hazardous material. He also said his company tested all\nthe packaging types\npassed the HMR's performances tests.\nand configurations they will be using, and all\nMr. Eaton ships Class 3, PGII, and Class 8, PG III materials,\nsometime in the same package. He\nconfigurations are tested to the PII standard. He said most\npackagings consist of 4-1 gallon inner packagings, but the company\nof non-hazardous\nalso ships with 3, 2 or 1 gallon inner containers along with bags\nmaterial or other types of cushioning to fill the\nvoid spaces.\nComments for Further Action: Prepare\nresponse and send through\nnormal clearances.\nSpecialist Signature:\nTolen Edmonton\nDate:\n3/21/01\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n•\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nSeventre Sw\nResearch and\nNashingion. D C\n20590\nAdministration\nSpecial Programs\nMAR - 71:2\nMr. Patrick\n•R. Muncie\nLockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems\nMZ 6888\nP.O. Box 748\nFort Worth, Texas\n76101\nDear Mr. Muncie:\nThis is in\nconcerning performance oriented packaging requirements. Your\nresponse to your letter of December 21, 1995,\nquestions are answered as follows:\nQ1. Is a shipper permitted to use a vendor-provided UN\npackaging that was tested with four 1-gallon cans if the\npackaging contains only three 1-gallon cans and the void\nspace is filled with vermiculite?\nAl.\nYes. Variations\ntested combination package, without further testing of\nare permitted in inner packagings of a\nthe package, provided an equivalent level of performance\nis maintained. A lesser number of the tested inner\npackagings may be used provided sufficient cushioning is\nadded to fill void space (s) and to prevent significant\nmovement of the inner packagings.\n178.601 (g) (1) and 178.601(g) (1) (ii).\nSee 49 CFR\nQ2.\nIs a shipper allowed to ship vendor supplied cartons\nthat have been manufactured more than 2 years prior?\nA2. Yes.\nThe packaging manufacturer must periodically\nretest to ensure that each packaging produced by the\n• qualification tests.\nfor manufacturers.\npackaging, store it indefinitely and then use it without\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\n7933\nRegulations Development\nStandards\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n„5. -\n•\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nResearch and\nWashington, D.C.\n20590\nAdministration\nSpecial Programs\nDEC 3 | 1992\nMr. Durwood Anderson\nWyle Laboratories\nManager, special Projects\n1841 Hillside Ave.\nNOICO, CA 91760\nDear Mr. Anderson:\nThis is in response to your letter of october 1, 1992 regarding third party\ntest certification of packages. Your questions have been paraphrased as\nfollows:\n2. If the outer fiberboard material of a 4G packaging that failed the cobb\ntest, but passed required performance tests, is treated to reduce water\nchange to the previously tested packaging - must the packaging be\nabsorption (thus meeting cobb test requirements) -- and that is the only\nrequalified?\nA. Yes.\nA packaging that does\n$ 178.516(b) (1) cannot be certified a UN 4G packaging, The 1G outer\npackaging must conform to both the subpart I cobb test and the subpart M\ntest requirements (with inner packagings) before the combination packaging\ncan be documented as a succeasfully tested design type, and UN certified.\ncans in this design type, would the packaging have to be recertified?\nl. If a nearly identical friction lid is applied to the inner metal gallon\na. so, under selectiva testing varsation 1 in $ 178 601(9) (1)(4) and (3)é\ninner packagings of similar design and material construction to\noriginally tested inner packagings may be used without further designi\ngross mass of the\ntesting provided an equivalent level of performance is maintained and the\ntested design type.\nsubstitute packaging doas not exceed the originally\ntested can and the substituted can?\n2. Would the same UN configuration number be used for both the originally\n1082\nAplof 2\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nw...\n•\n2\nA. In the performance system adopted under 1M-181, inner packagings of\nby \"UN configuration number\" you are referring to the certification marking\ncombination packagings are not marked with certification information.\nrequirements in S 178.503, there would be no change in marking because,\nunder variation 1, no design type change has been made requiring a new\ncombination package certification mark.\nIf we can be of further assistance, please let us know.\nSincerely,\nj0 Deputy Director, office of\nThomas G. Allan\nHazardous Materials standards\n1082\nApLofz\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\n•\nof Transportation\nUS. Department\nResearch and\n• •\nWashington, D.C.\n400 Seventh Street, S.W\n20590\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nNOV 1 3 1995\nMs. Patricia I. Garin\nmanager, Technical Services\n:\n1666 County Road 74\nTen-E Packaging Services,\nInc.\nNewport, Minnesota\n55055\nDear Ms. Garin:\nThis is in response to your August 23, 1995 letter concerning\nif Variation 1 in 49 CFR 178.601 (g) (1) (1) permits use of a\nThe\nmay be used without further testing if: (1) an equivalent level\nanswer is yes. A greater number of smaller inner packagings\nof cushioning material between inner packagings and the outside\nof performance is maintained, such as by ensuring the thickness\nof the packaging is not reduced below the corresponding thickness\noI the originally tested packaging; (2) the gross mass ot the\nother requirements of $ 178.601 (g) (1) (i) are met.\npackage does not exceed that of the original package; and (3) all\nIf we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact\nus.\nSincerely,\nDirector,\nMaterials Standards\nOffice of Hazardous\n7898\nAp 1of1\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\n• 11\nL.-\nCadbury Schweppes\nGLOBAL BEVERAGES TECHNOLOGY CENTER\nSEP ISEX! S\n30 TREFOIL DRIVE\nAMEMBER OF THE CADBURY SCHWEPPES pl GROUP\nTRUMBULL, CONNECTICUT 06611\nE000\nCT\n6703\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials\nStandards\nU.S. DOT/RSPA (DHM-10)\n400 7t Street S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590-001","truncated":false,"body_characters":14152}