{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0342","title":"Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2001-08-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0342 response to Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0342.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0342.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0342","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000342.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n•\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nAdministration\nAUG 17 2001\nMr. Richard M. Thomas\nPackaging Performance Specialist\nRef. No. 00-0342\nSmurfit-Stone Container Corporation\n910 Pasquine|li Drive\nWestmont, Illinois 60559\nDear Mr. Thomas:\nThis responds to your December 6, 2000 letter requesting clarification of specification packaging\nrequirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nSpecifically, you ask a number of questions on packaging manufacturing and testing requirements.\nYour questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1. How detailed do you require fiberboard packaging specifications to be in the test report?\nAl. The description of the packaging design type in the packaging test report required by § 178.601(1)\nmust be sufficiently detailed to assure that the packaging represented as meeting UN standards can\nbe identified by the test report.\nQ2. Must a complete wet board analysis be conducted for all fiberboard components as part of the\ndesign qualification or periodic retesting? In other words, must the fiberboard be taken apart to\ndetermine the weight of each layer of fiberboard and corrugate?\nA2. No, a complete wet board analysis is not required under the HMR. However, a wet board\nanalysis could be used in the future to determine the exact type of fiberboard used in a particular\npackaging.\nQ3. If a package testing laboratory submits a test report to its customer listing two completely different\nboard combinations for the intended fiberboard components without indicating which board\ncombination should actually be used in producing the certified package, which board combination\nshould the manufacturer of the packaging use to produce the component?\nA3. If the packaging was tested with both combinations, then either combination could be used for\nmanufacture of the packaging.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n•\n-2-\nQ4. How can a shipper of hazardous materials ensure that they are using a packaging correctly if\nthe package testing laboratory does not provide enough detail in the test report required by\n§ 178.601(1)?\nA4. A manufacturer must produce and a shipper must use a packaging identical to the one tested.\nIf the test report inadequately described the packaging, there is potential for non-compliance\non the part of the manufacturer or shipper. If you become aware of an instance of non-\ncompliance with the HMR, you should notify the Office of Hazardous Materials\nEnforcement (OHME) in writing at DHM-40, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC, 20590\nor by telephone at (202) 366-4700.\nQ5. If party \"A\" self-certifies a specification packaging, which is then manufactured by party\n\"B,\" who is responsible for the certification? Would party \"B\" be held responsible for\npackaging violations providing the packaging is certified by party \"A\"?\nA5. Generally, if party \"A\" certifies a packaging, they are responsible for assuring the packaging\nmeets required specifications. Party \"B\" is responsible for following the specifications for\nthe packaging provided by the certifying party or party \"A.\" However, while the person\ncertifying a packaging is generally responsible, others may have some responsibility based\non the functions they perform and any contractual responsibilities they may have.\nQ6. If there are multiple test reports reflecting different UN specifications for an outer packaging\nwith different size inner receptacles, can the heaviest gross weight be used for the\nspecification marking and then any of the different inner receptacles be used with the outer\npackaging?\nA6. The heaviest gross weight specification marking may be used in the case where the largest\ninner receptacles comprise the packaging with the heaviest gross mass. In this case, one\nspecification marking may identify the packaging. The packaging may then be used as\nprovided by § 178.601(g)(1) with smaller receptacles or fewer inner receptacles. For\ncombination packagings an inner receptacle may not be larger than the inner receptacles that\nwere tested with the same outer packaging and you may not place more inner receptacles in\nan outer packaging than what were tested with the same outer packaging..\nQ7. If a combination packaging was previously design qualification tested with several inner\npackagings all the same size and weight making up the gross weight of the packaging, can\nthe outer packaging upon retest contain an increased number of inner packagings?\nA7. No. (See § 178.601(c)(4).)\nQ8. If a combination packaging was previously design qualification tested with several inner\npackagings all the same size and weight making up the gross weight of the package, can the\nouter packaging upon retest contain a different size inner packaging (diameter and/or\nheight)?\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n-3-\nA8. Yes, if inner packagings conform to Variation 1 in § 178.601(g)(1). The inner packagings\nmust be: (1) equivalent in size or smaller than the tested inner packagings; (2) similar in\ndesign to the tested inner packagings; (3) constructed of material that offers the same or\ngreater resistance to stacking forces as the tested inner packaging; (4) constructed with the\nsame or smaller-sized openings and with closures that are similar in design to the tested\ninner packagings. In addition, sufficient cushioning must be provided to fill void spaces and\nprevent significant movement of the inner packagings, and the inner packagings must be\noriented in the same manner as the tested packagings. Further, the gross mass of the entire\n• package may not exceed that of the originally tested package. (See § 178.601(g)(1).)\nQ9. If a package was previously design qualification tested with several inner packagings all the\nsame size and weight making up the gross weight of the package, can the outer packaging\nupon retest contain fewer inner packagings, but a heavier net weight of inner packagings?\nA9. Yes, provided the gross mass of the packaging does not exceed the originally tested package\n(see A10).\nQ10. What is the responsibility of a testing lab or a manufacturer of a packaging if a customer\ndoes not properly class one of their materials and ships a hazmat as a non-hazmat?\nA10. Under the HMR, a shipper is responsible for properly classing a hazardous material that is\nto be offered for transportation. A packaging manufacturer or its testing laboratory cannot\nbe held responsible if its packaging is used by a shipper to transport a hazardous material\nthat has not been properly classed and identified. However, if a shipper relies on a testing\nlaboratory to class the hazardous material, then the testing laboratory could be cited for a\nviolation of the HMR if the material is classed incorrectly.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.\nSincerely,\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nNelson\nSmurfit-Stone\nMarketing and Technical Center\nDecember 6, 2000\nMr. Delmer Billings\nUS-DOT\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards, DHM-10\n400 7th St., SW\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Billings:\nAs a Self-Certified Testing Laboratory and as a manufacturer of packaging (i.e. supplier of\nfiberboard boxes) we have recently had several questions/concerns raised by our customers.\nHow can our customers ensure themselves that they are meeting their responsibilities when some\nof the 3'°-Party and/or Self-Certified testing facilites they use don't follow simple regulations. We\nare looking for hopefully the final interpretation explaining what is actually meant/required by law\nunder following sections of the regulations.\nPlease find several requests for interpretations and/or clarification based upon the current set of\nhazardous materials regulations:\nRequest 1: Record Retention: Description of packaging design types\n(49CFR178.601(I)(6)\nAs a manufacturer of packaging we believe it is imperative to manufacture our customer's\nfiberboard (outer and/or inner) components according to the most current test report our\ncustomers provide us. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to meet these tasks\ndue to the following situations. Please provide us with an explainable interpretation so we\ncan provide our customers to end their confusion and reduce both of our liability during the\nshipment of their hazardous materials:\nLack of proper detailed description of components\nHow detailed require does the outer and/or /inner fiberboard\npackaging specifications have to be in the final UN Report?\nSeveral 3rd-Party Certified Independent Labs and Self-Certified Labs\nstate that they are not required to list the exact fiberboard\ncombinations (example: 42 - 26 - 42 for a 200 lb.) for the outer\npartitions, inserts, etc. Some labs may only indicate a \"generic 200\npackaging and especially the inner packaging such as pads,\nIb. Mullen, ECT 32, a tare weight, or nothing at all.\nIs a complete wet board analysis required to be conducted for all\nfiberboard components as part the design qualification or\nperiodic retesting? Some 3rd-Party Certified Labs and Self-\nCertified Labs state they don't have to/or are not required to conduct\nan actual board analysis on any of the (outer and/or inner) packaging\nbeing tested. Instead they list what is provided on whatever\nSmurfit-Stone Container Corporation\n910 Pasquinelli Drive Westmont, Illinois 60559-5526 phone 630-920-9600 fax 630-920-9601\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n- .\n..\n•\n•\nspecifications a customer provides them, believing it is the\nresponsibility of the manufacturer of packaging to determine the\nactual board combination to use in the test.\nili.\nIf so, at what part of the test should the board analysis be\nrequired to be conducted? Please remember if someone pays for a\nwet\ncompleted test and the Lab conducting the test performs the board\nboard.\nanalysis at the end of the test (if they actually conducted on at all).\nAnd, the tested board does not actually match what the customer was\nexpecting; the customer most likely will incur an added expense\n(potentially up to the cost of a full test) creating a financial advantage\nfor the 3rd-Party Certified or Self-Certified Lab by conducting the\nboard analysis at the end of the test\nRecently, we had an in-depth conversation with a 3rd-Party Certified\nLab which stated that they conducted their board analysis at the end\niv.\nIf a 3'd-Party or Self- Certified Lab submits a Test Report to their\ncombinations (such as the expected and then a Quality Control Audit\nto their customers (i.e. our customers). By listing two different boar\nin sult withoutane explanation as to which one to was actually used\nLack of minimum required data in Test Reports\nthemselves that they are meeting their responsibilities when some of\nHow can a shipper of hazardous materials (i.e. our customers) ensure\nthe testing facilities they use don't follow the requirements in 49CFR\ndentification numbers, and most importantly the a missing test completio\nconcerns such as missing names of testing facilities; unique test repor\ndate. We are looking for hopefully the final interpretation explaining what\ninformation is actually required to appear in a UN Report.\nc.\nIf a shipper is using a currently UN-Certified package (who previously\nrefused to provide the minimum required information to the\nmanufacturer of the packaging) was found by RSPA to be in violation\nfor having a non-specification packaging. What would be the potential\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n•\n•\ncriminal and/or civil fines accessed to the person who did not provide\nthe proper information the or to the manufacturer of the packaging, the\ndistributor selling the certified package, or actual shipper? There have\nbeen several previously recorded Letters of Interpretation regarding the\nrequest for customers to provide manufacturers of packaging copies of their\ncomplete certifications. RSPA's response has been it should be a\ncontractual agreement between the manufacturer of packaging and the\npackaging manufacturer (i.e. our customers the shipper). We are requesting\nonce again that RSPA considers at least a minimum amount of data be\nrequired to be provided by customers to their suppliers.. To assure that the\nmanufacturer of packaging is not in violation of manufacturing components\nfor a non-certified package. The suggested data should contain at least the\nfollowing: name of testing the facility, unique test report identification number\nexpected board combinations of the fiberboard components, and the test's\ncompletion date.\nWe consider ourselves a responsible manufacturer of packaging and have\nasked several of our current customers to provided us this information in the\nform of an contractual agreement but still they refused (citing several of\nthese Letters of Interpretations) to provide us any information especially the\ntest completion date. We have found the biggest offenders to be those\ncustomer who are considered an 3rd-Party Certified Labs who actually Self-\nCertify their own packages. How can the manufacturer of the packaging\nprotect them from being included in the potential fines without loosing the our\ncustomers?\nSeveral of our customers have been questioning the intended/implied packaging\ndescriptions and preparations of packagings and packages during their initial design\nqualification testing and periodic retesting.\nPlease provide us with an explainable interpretation so we can provide our customers to\nend their confusion and reduce their liability during the shipment of their hazardous\nmaterials:\n* What is the intent of the current law in regards to using non-bulk or bulk samples\nRequest 2: Preparation of Packagings and Packages (49CFR178.602)\nthat are used in the following two -(2) situations which require the samples to be 24-\nhr precondition and then tested in an uncontrolled environment? Or should the\nsamples be preconditioned for the 24-hrs and then tested in a same conditioned\nmaintained environment as listed in 49CFR178.602(d) and (d)(1) in order to\nmaintained repeatability:\nStacking Test (49CFR178.606)\n• Vibration Standard (49CFR178.608)\nAnyone with a basic understanding of paper and fiberboard realizes as the relative humidity\nincreases (above the specified variance of 5 percent) in the material, the strength of the\npaper or fiberboard is weakened substantially creating a significant impairment of test\nreproducibility. Therefore, it is important to conduct the above tests in an environmentally\nmaintained conditioned laboratory for the complete test.\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n...\n•\n•\nRequest 3: Marking of Packagings (49CFR178.503)Some of our customers are under the\nimpression that only one UN Specification Number is allowed to be printed on a\nSpecification Packaging:\na.\nIf there are multiple UN Specification Markings for different packagings\nusing the same outer can the heaviest Gross Weight Specification\nCan a customer only list one of the UN Specification Numbers on their\npackage if there are several identical Self-Certified UN Specification\nNumbers for different packaging using the same outer packaging? Or\ndo all of the UN Specification Numbers have to be listed on the\npackage?\nRequest 4: Standards for Fiberboard Boxes (49CFR178.516)\nIs signing Blanket Statements guaranteeing the fiberboard that is used in the outer\npackaging always \"Pass\" the 30-min. Cobb Water Absorbency Test legal or not?\nSeveral of our customers who use certain 3rd-Party and/or Self-Certified Labs, require our\nBox Plants to sign statements assuring the fiberboard used in the packages will always\nmeet the required Cobb Water Absorbency Test. We believe these certifying Labs are\nmaking these requests because they may or may not have actually conducted the Cobb\nTesting during the actual certification testing.\nRequest 5: General Requirements (49CFR178.601(c)(1) and Preparation of\nPackagings and Packages (49CFR178.602)\na.\nIf a package was previously design qualification tested with several inner\npackages that were of the same size and weight making up the gross weight\nof the package. How can the certification in question at the time of the\n7\nperiodic retested contained the following possibilities?\nii.\nan increased number of inner packagings,\nili.\nan increased inner package diameter or height,\nan increased inner package net weight but a lesser number of\noverall inner packagings\nOr should this package in question be individually tested in the design\nqualification manor for each of the above conditions.\nRequest 6: Drop Test (49CFR178.603) and Static Load Testing (49CFR178.606)\nIn final rule HM-218 that went into effect on October 1, 2000 several changes were\nmentioned regarding the changes in the Drop and Static Load Tests. The following\nquestions were raised by some of our customer during their recent design qualification and\nperiodic retests since the actual the changes were listed in the August 18, 2000 Federal\nRegister (65FR50450):\na.\nDrop Tests (49 CFR178.603 (f)(5)) - now allows a slight discharge from a\nclosure of any type of non-bulk packaging following the drop tests, if it\nceases immediately after impact and there is no further leakage; however,\nwhat would be the acceptance criteria (pass or failure) in the following\nconditions.\nIf the intended package contains the following inner packages a\nplastic bottle containing the intended hazardous material and a Heat-\nSealed Plastic Bag which contains a non-hazardous solid. After the\nfive - (5) individual drops, none of the plastic bottles show signs of\nfailure; however, three - (3) out of the five -(5) drops had the\nsimulated solid leak out of the outer package prior to opening the\npackage. (Note: the poly bag was conditioned in this case at O\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n....\n•\ndegrees for the required 24-hr. period of time. When the intended\nWe believe that the package should be considered a \"failure\"\nBeen mad at at me ag want propage from a.\nii.\nIn a different design qualification test a customer's intended package\nconting several of tul outer pacines had are finger Daring the cre\nDuring the dro\nejected slightly from or completely through the outer packages (Note:\none of the method of closure failed). None of the inner package:\nleaked; however, the outer package was adversely affected creatin\na safety concern during transport. Once again, the customer in\nquestion would consider the above situation as a \"pass\" since they\nwere going to self-certify the package themselves and in their oriaina\nlesign qualification test, the testing agency considered that type o\nili.\nHow much (percentage of damage in any of the dimensions) of a rio\n\". How would RSPA judge either of these situations?\nin the outer package would RSPĂ allow before they would consider\nStatic Load Tests (49 CFR178.606 (c)(1)) - Can you provide us a clear\ndefinition/explanation on what a \"guided load test\" actually means? We\nbelieve it to be when individual weights are applied by hand within some type\nof fixture, which is placed on top of the intended package. Or could it be\nconsidered a mechanical compression table which applies the intended load\nrequired 24-hr. of time.\nat a fixed application rate of speed and once it is reached it is held for the\nc.\nStatic Load Tests (49 CFR178.606 (c)(1)) - What would happen if one of our\ncustomer's conducted their non-bulk design qualification Static Compression\nTesting using a compression table which was capable of holding a constant\nload for the required 24-hrs. under the following conditions:\ni.\nIf the customer was originally trained on how to conduct non-bulk\ndesign qualification Static Compression Testing using a compression\ntable (with either a fixed or floating platen) without an approval letter\nby the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety to\nii.\nili.\neither a fixed or floating platen) be accepted for non-bulk design\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nqualification testing by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous\nMaterials Safety after-the-fact.\niv.\nIf the above method was approved would the previously certified\nV.\npackages have to be completely, particularly, or not retested\ntable platen (floating or fixed) that should be used during this type of\nCan RSPA define/explain in writing the exact type of compression\ntest since it is not stated in the current regulations?\nRequest 6: Shipper's Responsibility (49CFR173.22) and the Definition of Hazardous\nMaterials (49CFR171.8)\na.\nCertified Lab, or a manufacturer of packaging, if a customer does not\nWhat would be the potential liability of a 3rd-Party Certified Lab, a Self-\nproperly classify one of their products and actually ship a hazardous\nnaterial (by definition only) as a non-hazardous material? Recently, in\n_etter of Interpretation dated April 4, 2000, acetic acid was reviewed an\nimplied to be considered a hazardous material based on the information\nprovided in that particular letter. However, there is a much bigger chemical\ncurrently being shipped currently in large amounts potentially illegally. The\nchemical is citric acid whether it is in its food-grade or not or in a liquid or\nsolid form. Several years ago pure citric acid was tested using the \"Invitro\nCorrositex® Test Method\" to determine its corrosivity and results came back\nas a Packaging Group II product.\nHow can we as a Self-Certified Lab convince our customers that they\nare fully responsible to make sure that the products being shipped by\nthem are not really hazardous? Most shippers in general think, if their\nproduct does not show up in the Hazardous Materials Table (49CFR172.101)\nexactly; they are not then not considered even though the product in question\nmay actually be considered regulated under a Generic Proper Shipping\ntested properly.\nName listing. A majority of the shippers out do not even have their products\nAn expedited response to these problems would be greatly appreciated since it is costing our\ncustomers money and may be jeopardizing safe transportation of hazardous materials in\ncommerce.\nIf you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me by phone at (630)-794-0331 or by\nfax at (630)-794-0431. A speedy reply would be appreciated. Thank you.\nSincerely,\nRuhan momen\nRichard M. Thomas\nPackaging Performance Specialist\nCC.\n-\nJim Mackowski, Stone Container Corporation: Marketing and Technical\nCenter - Westmont, IL\n6","truncated":false,"body_characters":22257}