# Inland Paperboard and Packaging, Inc — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **operation:** document - **citation:** 02-0124 - **title:** Inland Paperboard and Packaging, Inc — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **source type:** guidance - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** guidance - **official:** true - **published on:** 2002-07-11 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** 02-0124 response to Inland Paperboard and Packaging, Inc concerning 178.601. - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-02-0124.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-02-0124.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-02-0124 - **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2002/020124.pdf **body:** <<>> - F.. U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Research and Special Programs JUL 1 1 2002 Administration Mr. John H. Rutherford Reference No.: 02-0124 Manager, Testing Solutions Lab Inland Paperboard and Packaging, Inc. 8501 Moller Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 Dear Mr. Rutherford: This is in response to your letter requesting clarification of selective testing Variation 2 under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Your customer has asked you to test and certify a combination package where the inner packagings are plastic bottles containing liquids as a Variation 2 packaging. Your customer has interpreted § 178.601(g)(2)(i) to mean that glass is an example of a "fragile inner packaging." Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows: Q1. Is it permissible to use plastic inner receptacles conditioned to -18 °C (0 °F) in lieu of glass for the drop test required in § 178.601(g)(2)(i)? Al. The answer is yes. Drop testing of combination packagings with plastic inner packagings intended to contain liquids must be carried out when the temperature of the test sample and its contents has been reduced to - 18 °C (0 °F) (see § 178.603(c). Q2. Can we certify our combination packagings for Variation 2 using plastic inner packagings? A2. The answer is yes, provided the specific conditions of the variation are met. Q3. Assuming we can test to Variation 2, should a statement be included in the certification report that the packaging qualifies under § 178.601(g)(2) for selective testing of combination packagings as long as no inner packagings more fragile than plastic at - 18 °C (O °F) are used? A3. Such a statement is permissible, but not required. Variation 2 allows inner packagings of any type in an outer packaging without retesting if the specific conditions of the variation are met. <<>> I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Hothes. Mitchet Hattie L. Mitchell Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards <<>> : • of Transportation U.S. Department 400 Seventh St., S.W. Research and MAY 20 2003 Washington, D.C. 20590 Special Programs Administration Mr. John Rutherford Manager, Testing Solutions Lab Reference No.: 02-0124 Inland Paperboard and Packaging, Inc. 8501 Moller Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 Dear Mr. Rutherford: This letter replaces our July 11, 2002 response to your request for a clarification of selective testing, Variation 2, under § 178.601(g)(2)(i) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Variation 2 allows inner packagings of any type in an outer packaging without retesting if the specific conditions of the variation are met. You stated that your customer asked you to test and certify a combination package where the inner packagings are plastic bottles containing liquids as a Variation 2 packaging. Variation 2 states that the outer packaging must be tested "with fragile (e.g. glass) inner packagings containing liquids." Our responses to your paraphrased questions are as follows: Q1. Is it permissible to use plastic inner receptacles conditioned to -18 °C (0 °F) in lieu of glass for the drop test required in § 178.601(g)(2)(i)? A1. Under the HMR, the drop test required in § 178.601(g)(2)(i) may be conducted using inner receptacles made of "fragile" plastic material. The intent of Variation 2 is to conduct the test with the most fragile inner packaging. Drop testing of combination packagings with plastic inner packagings intended to contain liquids must be carried out when the temperature of the test sample and its contents have been reduced to - 18 °C (0 °F) (see § 178.603(c)). However, you should be aware that some Competent Authorities deem only glass as fragile. A proposal, ISO 16104:2002(E), currently before the United Nation's Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods would require the inner packagings for "v" marked packagings to be of glass, porcelain, or stoneware. If approved by the United Nations, we may propose a revision to the requirements in § 178.601(g)(2)(i) of the HMR to make them consistent with the international regulations. <<>> Q2. Can we certify our combination packagings for Variation 2 using plastic inner packagings? A2. The answer is yes, provided the specific conditions of the variation are met, including the use of a plastic inner packaging that is considered to be "fragile." Q3. Assuming we can test to Variation 2, should a statement be included in the certification report that the packaging qualifies under § 178.601(g)(2) for selective testing of °C (0 °F) are used? combination packagings as long as no inner packagings more fragile than plastic at -18 Such a statement is not required under the HMR, but we recommend that the Notification required by § 178.2(c) inform distributors and users of the type of inner packagings used in the certification test and advise that inner packagings that are more fragile may not be used. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Hottie z. Mithell Hattie L. Mitchell Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards <<>> : Apr-22-03 10:15 packg Res 6104369422 P.02 package is simply an extension of the origi- retaining its identity as one authorized and nal import movement, with the package § 171.12(b) in conformance with IMDG Code requirements, or as a foreign-manu- Letter dated July 11, 2002 to used under the § 171.12(b) IMDG Code factured package authorized for use within Mr. John H. Rutherford, import provisions. Thus, the packaging is. the United States under § 173.24(d), the Testing Solutions Lab. not being "reused" (i.e., used more than package would be required to be reclosed in once) - the return can be viewed a continu- such a manner as to conform to the manner I find DOT's responses in this letter quite port cycle for the package. So, in this regard ation, indeed, the completion, of the trans- in which the packagings subjected to the UN curious. Having worked very closely in design qualification tests were closed. It 1990 at the United Nations Committee with the DOT letter is quite correct - not with- remains unclear whether, or how, this infor- the then-DOT International Standards standing what might initially be viewed as a mation is to be provided to the customer Coordinator when what is now "Variation possible inconsistency in terms of the con- closing the package for return to Germany. i 2" in $ 178.601 (g) was first developed and ditions imposed under § 171.12(b) (6). One final comment. While the forgoing j tions, 1 recall rather cicarly that the intent of incorporated into the UN Recommenda- At the same time, however, it is unclear discussion is offered in the context of the why DOT states that the requirement in IMDG Code "import" provisions appearing these provisions was to use glass or some- the packaging is subsequently returned to 5s 173.24 and 173.24a would apply only if in § 171.12 (b), much of it would be equal- • thing of similar fragility for the design qual- ly applicable to UN packagings transported ification tests for "V-marked" packages. In would appear to apply equally either to any the United States - as these requirements under the ICAO Technical Instructions pur- glass! fact, I would say not just glass, but fragile § 171.11 differs from § 171.12(b) in that it suant to § 171.11. Interestingly, however, § 171.12(b), or to any foreign-manufac- package exported under the provisions of marked packaging was that it could be used The fundamental underlying the V- does not impose as a condition that pack- under the provisions of § 173.24(d). tured and marked UN packaging used ages being exported must comply with the design qualification tests and packaging with any inner packaging because the applicable requirements in §$ 173.24. and not addressed by DOT in its response, An issue not raised by the questioner, 173.24a and 173.28. quantity and thickness of absorbent mater- configuration (for example, in terms of is relevant to the scenario described. This Selective Testing of Variation 2 ial) demanded a very high level of perfor- concerns the manner in which the package, mance. For example, as far as the tests tomer for return to Germany. Whether after being emptied, is reclosed by the cus- Packaging • had to be used and with the drop always were concerned, fragile inner packagings shipped for return under the provisions of Reference $178.601, from the Packing Group I drop height and found on page 53 of this issue. -- • that which would be authorized for use in with the mass of inner packagings twice gh Package and v-gh Product Testing and Consulting, Inc. • Vibration = Impact shock • Compression ISO 17025 accredited* • Material analysis/testing Engineers & Technicians have been IATA trained and tested • Environmental Conditioning Evaluate and Certify Package • Video Conferencing, Product Performance Services High Speed Video Pendulum Impact Tester, I.S.T.A. (all projects), ASTM, NMFC, U.N./D.O.T Hazmat). Products up to 8000 Ibs. tested GSA, Fed & Mil Spec Testing EASTERN FACILITY * WESTERN FACILITY (513) 870-0080 (623) 869-8008 Fax: (513) 870-3017 Email: info@ghtesting.com 325 Commercial Dr., Fairlield, OH 45014 335 W. Melinda Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85027 Fax: (623) 869-8003 Email: info @ghtesting.com September/October 2002 Copyright 2002 Packaging Research International, Inc. • 877-429-7447 • Reproduction Prohibited HAZMAT Paciager & Shipper 19 <<>> Apr-22-03 10:15 packg. Res 6104369422 P.03 the field. It would appear that use of plastic sequenty, packagings manufactured from aging design qualification tests, and, con- inner packagings to qualify a V-marked package could seriously undermine this that fibreboard considered to be of a "dif HAZMAT the plastic inner packagings, used when underlying philosophy - unless, of course, ferent design type. DOT has typically held that the fibreboard must be "virtually iden- conditioned to -18°C, become more fragile tical" - but what, exactly does that mean? Packager i Shipper than glass! or another on that issue. In the first (to Mr. Each of these letters touches in one way Moreover, the statement - which DOT acknowledges is "permissible, but not DOT states that fibreboard with a basis Senzel) it is not in any way surprising that HAZMATIPS required" - suggested for inclusion in the packaging test report that the packaging is weight different from that of the board used is "more fragile than plastic at -18°C" (what suitable provided no inner packaging used 1. What is the intent of "Variation en machi ate packagings, 2" in 49 CFR 178.601(g)(2)? kind of plastic?) appears also to run is, the V-marked packaging is supposed to counter to this underlying philosophy. That type]". In the second letter, in response to This variation was agreed to by the UN "each run of corrugated board may provide concerns expressed by the writer that, since to permit, without a full requalification of inner packagings different from those design test, the conditional substitution be authorized for any inner packaging - with no "strings" attached. different [cobb test] results" a certification of discussions that took place at the UN It is entirely possible that my recollection requested by customers that all board pro- tested in the original design tests. This is duced can "pass" the Cobb test should be to be accomplished by drop testing a Committee so many years ago is flawed. edges that no such "blanket statement" is viewed as "unacceptable", DOT acknowl- a greater total combined package weight decidedly most fragile inner packaging at direct knowledge) that the view stated by Nevertheless, I have some concer (but no required by the HMR. Curiously (and than would be authorized for actual ship- other national "competent authorities" when DOT in this letter would not be shared by go on to state that it is nevertheless a almost humorously), however, DOT fails to ment by the markings. The theory was inner packagings in a combined heavier that by using a combination of fragile interpreting the corresponding provisions in requirement (blanket statement to cus- the UN Recommendations, ICAO Technical board used in the manufacture of UN certi- tomers or not) of the HMR that all fibre- unit in a successful drop test, it would be Instructions, ADR. etc. And even if simply testing, for the modified combination safe, without repeating complete design based on the need to ensure a very high level fied 4G outer packagings be capable of "passing" that test! packaging to be used with any suitably of performance with V-marked package in in terms of fibreboard properties means at So, it may be concluded that "identical" protected inner packagings. actual transport - as opposed to strictly sat- isfying the minimum requirements of the encourage the design qualification testing of HMR - I would personally be reluctant to least the same basis weight and capable of 2. Can DOT authorize the use of level in the Cobb test. But it means even meeting the same minimum performance "non-glass" inner packaging a V-marked package with any inner packag- by using in the Variation 2 ing other than one of glass. And fragile glass more, and it is important to take all relevant drop test, an inner packaging (whatever that may be) at that! factors into account in assessing whether that might not be "as fragile as is "virtually identical" to that used in the fiberboard used in production packagings fragile can be» and then quali- Fiberboard Packaging Properties, packagings subjected to the design qualifi- tying its "lesser fragility"? Design Qualification Testing cation tests. In this regard, DOT has previ- ously stated in various interpretations that concept is clear based on one of its "clar- That DOT appears to have adopted this Reference $§ 178.601 and 178.516, found on page 53 of this issue. fibreboards must have the same burst to be "virtually identical" to one another ification letters. But the author points out Letters dated August 2, 2002 to that some doubt may exist about this Mr. Tony Senzel of Corrugated strength, edge crush resistance, water absorption rate, board weights, manner of approach in view of the history of this construction, flute and caliper. Moreover, exception and consequently its potential Supplies Corporation and to DOT has always prefaced such listings of unacceptability by other competent Mir. Richard M. Thomas of properties by the words "such as" - imply- authorities. There might be a question Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation. whether DOT has exceeded the authority ing that other characteristics may be rele- vant to the determination of what is "virtu- agreed upon by the international commu- nection with UN "4G" fibreboard combina- An issue that frequently arises in con- ally identical" (but, unfortunately, never nity. The author believes that any person explicitly stating what these additional very cautiously. [Editor's NOTE: Fragile is using such an approach should do so tion packagings, is what degree of variation ated before the fibreboard is viewed as a in the properties of fibreboard can be toler- characteristics might be!). # may feel that it has more precisely limited not a defined term in the UN and DOT "different" material from that used in pack- what is being authorized.] manh Intornalinnal inc. • 877-429-7447 • Reproduction Prohibited Seriestes/Octrier 2042 <<>> Apr-22-03 10:16 packg Res 6104369422 P.04 US DOT Interpretations § 178.516 August 2, 2002 I hope this answers your inquiry. aging qualifies under $ 178.601 (g) (2) This responds to your January 29, 2002 letter requesting clarification on package Sincerely, packagings as long as no inner pack- for selective testing of combination testing under the Hazardous Materials Delmer F. Billings agings more fragile than plastic at -18 Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171- Chief, Standards Development oC (000) are used? 180). Specifically, you ask if your box office of Hazardous Materials Standards plant can be required to sign a blanket A3. Such a statement is permissible, but statement guaranteeing that fiberboard not required. Variation 2 allows "pass" the 30-minute Cobb Water used in the outer packaging will always § 178.601 July 11, 2002 inner packagings of any type in an outer packaging without retesting if Absorbency Test. You also ask what must pass the Cobb Test, the "combined" ing clarification of selective testing This is in response to your letter request- tion are met. the specific conditions of the varia- (corrugated fiberboard material) or the Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Variation 2 under the Hazardous only), and, what results to use, an indi- "base material" (outer liner component I hope this information is helpful. If you Parts 171-180). have further questions, please do not indicated in the ISO International vidual result or average of test results as hesitate to contact this office. Standard 535 provisions? Your customer has asked you to test and inner packagings are plastic bottles con- certity a combination package where the Sincerely, According to your letter, 3rd party taining liquids as a Variation 2 packag- Hattie L. Mitchell and/or self-certified labs are requesting that your box plants sign blanket state- ing. Your customer has interpreted Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention is used in their outer packaging always ments guaranteeing the fiberboard that an example of a "fragile inner packag- § 178.601 (g) (2)(i to mean that glass is Office of Hazardous Materials Standards ing." believe that this type of practice is unac- "pass" the 30-minute Cobb Test. You § 178.602 July 17, 2002 ceptable since each run of corrugated Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows: This responds to your April 25, 2002 let- board may provide different results. The ter requesting we consider alternative HMR do not require blanket statements 21. Is it permissible to use plastic inner testing procedures to those under the always pass the Cobb Test. Decisions guaranteeing that the fiberboard will receptacles conditioned to -18°C 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; regarding such business (0°F) in lieu of glass for the drop should be negotiated between your com- practices test required in § 178.601 (g) (2) (i)? you are recommending for retesting of ask that we consider two options that pany and your customers. A1. The answer is yes. Drop testing of previously certified UN hazardous mate- inner packagings intended to con- combination packagings with plastic rial packages. You state that these rec- In your package testing scenario, the ommended testing procedures will help Cobb Test is conducted on the "com- when the temperature of the test tain liquids must be carried out the environment and reduce waste and bined" (corrugated fiberboard material) costs involved with UN hazardous mate- and it fails to pass the Cobb Test. If the sample and its contents has been rials testing. You further state that these Cobb Test was then conducted on the reduced to -18°C (0°F) § 178.603 (c). (see only when agreed upon by the custome ecommended options are to be use ponent only) that was actually used in actual "base materials" (outer liner com- and testing laboratory performing the the box and the base material passes, 22. Can we certify our combination test. use. Section 178.516 (b) (1) requires the you ask which set of results should you packagings for Variation 2 using plastic inner packagings? You propose the following options: outer surface of the combined board to required for drop tests be reduced to Option #1 - The quantity of packs be tested, not the "base materials" or outer liner component. ISO International A2. The answer is yes, provided the spe- met. cific conditions of the variation are three (3) packs with multiple drops per- age, therefore, the average test results Standard 535 specifies using the aver- rmed on two (2) packs, and Option : Use only two (2) complete filled pack determine whether the fiberboard passes 23. Assuming we can test to Variation 2, recommend these procedures for: (1) for stack, vibration and drop testing. You or fails the Cobb Test. should a statement be included in the certification report that the pack- retest only when no substantial change in supplier or material has been made September/October 2002 Copyright 2002 Packaging Research Intemational, Inc. • 877-429-7447 • Reproduction Prohibited MAZHAT Pachaper & Stiper 53 <<>> Apr-22-03 10:17 packg Res 6104369422 P.05 Questions « Answers I thereby allowing difterent, less under actual transport, etc.) - fragile inner packagings of lesser NO&A filled weight to be substituted for design qualification tests. the inner packaging(s) used in the MAT Having said this, however, there are still a number of conditions use of V-marked packagings that and limitations that apply to the By Andy Altemos, Technical Advisor must be borne in mind when pack- O: Could you clarify what require- ments must be met relative on the "Selective testing of combina- in § 178.601 (g) (2) as "Variation 2" ing inner packagings in V-marked packages in order to ensure the for hazardous materials? My to using V-marked packagings tion packagings". Packagings con- the regulations. As with any UN package is used in compliance with understanding is that the per- forming to this selective testing formance capabilities of this variation" are frequently referred ed packaging, it is imperative to Specification, performance-orient- tunity to package a wide range product may present the oppor- to as because §§ 178.503(a) (2) "V-marked" packagings and or limitations arising from the adhere to any relevant conditions of hazardous materials by the ings conforming to the variation to be 178.601 (g) (2) (vii) require packag- configured for testing. These are manner in which the package was overestimated how these pack- various modes. Have shipper's the applicable UN packaging code marked with the letter "V" following certification for the packaging, as identified in the test report or precautions must I take with agings can be used, and what (for example, "4GV" or "LAZV" for them? Can they be reused? conforming combination packagings sure" instructions (required under and/or the manufacturer's "clo- with a fiberboard box or removable A: Certainly, the "V-marked" packag- respectively). head steel drum outer packaging, § 178.2(c) of the HMR to be pro- vided by the manufacturer to each ing is a packaging designed and transferred). In addition, in the person to whom the packaging is compliance with the packaging intended to be used to achieve As stated in the introductory sen- requirements for many different underiying purpose of the varia- tence to § 178.601(g) (2), the applicable conditions and limita- case of V-marked packagings, any packagings and under a wide materials in a variety of inner tion is to allow articles or inner array of circumstances. At the assembled as a combination pack- packagings of any type to be Tachnical Actviser to ¡ Andy Altemos is:" same time, it is my experience that "overestimation" of the ability of in many cases there has been an aging and transported without HAZMAT Packager & figuration of inner packaging and need for testing that specific con- Snipper, and is a partner in the firm, HMT S such packagings to be used in a packaging components). This outer packaging (including related Associates, L.C.C, compliant manner owing to a mis- and limitations that attach to the understanding of the conditions allows a variety of inner packag- . Alexandria, VA. Mr. ings that have not been tested in Attemos was formerty Secretarial to the use of such packagings. "design type" to be assembled and the outer packaging as a defined International Civil Aviation Organization's assignment he was international Standards (CAO) Dangerous Goods Pandl, Prior to that While this discussion of "V-marked" offered for transport in compliance packagings will focus on the applica- safety in the transport of these with the regulations. To ensure Coordinator in the U.S. DOT Research & : ble requirements in the DOT Special Programs Administration, in which Hazardous Materials Regulations ("HMR"), readers are advised that nation packagings, the underlying untested configurations of combi- expert capacity he represented the United in the UN Model Regulation and in essentially the same provisions exist aging is to perform the design philosophy of the V-marked pack- States at the meetings of the United Nations (UN) Committee of Experts on the Transport that standard - for example, the international regulations based on with "fragile" inner packaging(s) qualification tests on the package of Dangerous Goods and its subsidiary bod- ies, the International Maritime Organization's IMDG Code and the ICAO Technical under exceedingly conservative Sub-Committee on the Carriage of Dangerous Instructions (and the associated IATA conditions (e.g., from the Packing Goods and served as the United States' mem- the HMR, the basic requirements for Dangerous Goods Regulations). In Group I drop height, with the inner ber on the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel. the "V-marked" packaging are found gross mass that will be allowed packagings filled to twice the He may be contacted by telephone at 1 (703) 549-0727, or fax at 1 (703) 549-0728. 12 HAZMAT Paskaper 8 Shier Copyright 2002 Packaging Research International, Inc. • 877-429-7447 • Reproduction Prohibited March/April 2042 <<>> Apr-22-03 10:18 packg Res 6104369422 P.06 * Questions & Answers • tions imposed by § 178.601 (g) (2) must also be satisfied. Some examples of considerations in the use of V-marked packagings aris- itations are outlined below. ing from these conditions and lim- Selective Testing of Combination Packagings. • Variation 2. Section 178.601(g)(2) the use of V-marked packagings is One area commonly overlooked in :; assembled and transported without testing in an outer packaging urider the : Articles or inner packagings of any type, for solids or liquids, maybe thickness of cushioning material the requirement governing the following conditions: between inner packagings and outer packagings (see § 178.601 between inner packagings and *(i) The oüter packaging "must have been successfully tested in accordance regulations require the cushioning (g) (2) (ili) on page 13). Here, the at the Packing Group i drop helght; . with 178.603 with fraölle (e.g. glass) inner packagings containing liqulds than that used in the design quali- material thickness to be not less one half, the gross mass ofinger packagings used for the drop test, ::) the total combined, gross mass of inner packagings may not exceed fication test. So, it is necessary for test report and/or manufacturers the user to consuit the packaging le thickness of sushering materal between inter backaginds and instructions to determine the mini- niner packagings and the outside of the packagingmay.motspe ensure that this minimum thick- mum thickness required, and to a sinale inner nong thickness in the originally tested packaging; Shioning betwee ackaging was used in the original test the thick- always maintained between inner ness of cushioning material is ushioning between Inner packagings máy not be less thạn th thick- packagings and between packagings and the outer packag- inner ng: the original test ne outside of the packaging and the inner pack compared to the hen either fewer or smaller ner packagings are in the design qualification test but a single inner packaging was used offered for transport. In addition, it ing in each V-marked package additio al cushioning mater al must be used to take up, void spaces se nner, packagings used in the drop test), suicient (v) the outer packaging must have successtuly passed the stacking forth n $178.606 of this subpart when empty, i.e; withoat ether inher back- Fast set the V-marked packaging is to be inner packaging, the thickness of used to transport more than one gings Cushioning materials. The total mass of identical packagest the combined m lasstof inner packagings used for the drop te ast be packagings must always be at least cushioning material between inner packagings • CO taba lauds must he completory. that existing between the inner Icient quantity. absörbent materials to absorb the. entire guid Surrou the design qualification test. packaging and outer packaging in the inner packagi the outer padean intended to coman hel The V-marked packaging require-. of few or smaller inner packagings ments specifically address the use As not leakproo or s intended to contain miner Kadi IS not: sittproo - in which case sufficient addition- than used in the tested design type event of lea means of containing anya quid for. bag, or other equaly efficient means of gi must be provider n mee al cushioning material must always be used to take up all void spaces. aining quasa the absorbent matenal (this section must be placed inside the means of containing required in pa The regulations clearly imply that used than were used in the design more inner packagings may be nts; and qualification test (see discussion in ings must bermarked in acco seen tested to Packing Group I Partormance for combination roance 78.603 or his.pa regarding § 178.601 (g) (2) (ili) and above thickness between inner packag- required cushioning The marked aximum gross mass, may not exceed the ing was used in the design qualifi- ings when only one inner packag- gings of the tested combination packaging An additio (the outer packaging plus one half the mass, of the tilled ble requirements are met. cation tests) - provided the applica- y$178.603(a)(2) of this part must include the letter? inemarking March/April 2002 Copyright 2002 Packaging Research International, Inc. • 877-429-7447 • Reproduction Prohibited HAZMAN Packager & Stiper 13 <<>> Apr-22-03 10:21 packg Res 6104369422 P.O7 Questions & Answers inner packagings than were used in But what about using fewer langer ple, inner packaging and net pack- the design qualification tests? The age quantity limits, and the capabil- applicable requirements, condi- regulations are silent on this, but a ity of inner packagings containing in the regulations and by the tions and limitations as prescribed DOT interpretation letter written in liquids to withstand the prescribed July 2001 suggests that this is per- pressure differential without leak- take appropriate steps to ensure packaging manufacturer, and to missible provided the weight of the employees utilizing these packag- larger inner packaging(s) does not authorized use. * ings are properly trained in their exceed one-half the aggregate gross in the design qualification tests (as weight of the inner packagings used provided in 5 178.601 (g) (2) (i). is silent on the question of the thick- Unfortunately, the DOT interpretation HAZMAT in such a case. It may be assumed ness of required cushioning material Finally, with regard to reuse of V- material between the larger inner that the thickness of cushioning Packager - Shipper packagings and between the larger inner packaging(s) and the outer specifically prohibited from reuse paper, plastic film or textile being Hazmat Tips that existing between the inner pack- packaging must always be at least by § 173.28 (b) (3) of the HMR agings and between the inner pack- ("liberboard" not being consid- Use of V-marked agings and outer packaging in the poses of ered by DOT as "paper" for pur- design qualification test. However, it this However, for practical reasons the prohibition). Packagings would ensure sufficient protection for may be questioned whether this possibility of reusing fibreboard What is a V-marked packaging? a larger, heavier inner packaging. regulations is highly problematic. packagings in compliance with the This is a special type of UN specifica- When V-marked packagings are bulk packagings in S$ 173.28(a) The reuse requirements for non- to be used to meet packaging require- tion packaging designed and intended used for the transport of liquids, inner packagings must be sur- and (b) would apply. Thus, any a variety of inner packagings under a ments for many different materials in rounded with a sufficient quantity packaging showing evidence of of absorbent material to absorb the reduction in integrity (including for a variety of inner packagings that wide array of circumstances. It allows entire liquid contents of the inner punctures, tears, de-lamination, packagings. This includes when etc., in sides or flaps) may not be have not been tested in the outer "larger" inner packagings are used, reused. Closure of the reused nevertheless to be assembled and packaging as a defined "design type" as discussed above. accordance with the manufactur- packaging would have to be in offered for transport. And, of course, as is the case with tionable whether, for example, er's instructions - and it is ques- packaging, the manner of closing any UN Specification combination Which previous means of closure retaping or resealing flaps from Where do 1 find the requirements for V-marked packaging? the packaging must conform to the manufacturer's closure instructions had been removed for even not See § 178.601 (g)(2) in the DOT - for example, in the case of a fibre- removed) would comply with the Hazmat regulations, noted as board box combination packaging, closure method specified by the "Variation 2"(see page 13). box flaps must be closed and the manufacturer for a "new" packag- box sealed with the same type of ing of the same design type. special markings and where do I find Do V-marked packagings require fied by the packaging manufactur- tape or method of closure as speci- So, while the V-marked packaging these rules for how to mark them? er. Moreover, the gross weight of a is an extremely valuable tool to filled packaging may never exceed ensure compliance in the packag- (2) (vii) of the DOT regulations. See §§ 178.503(a)(2) and 178.601 (g) the gross mass indicated in the UN materials in many different inner ing of a wide variety hazardous applied to the package. packaging certification markings conditions and limitations associ- packagings, there nevertheless are Go to Andy Altemos presentation in If the V-marked package is to be ings that must be observed ated with the use of these packag you clarify what requirements must be HAZMAT Q&A, page 12, titled, "Could requirements for air transport must transported by air, all the general ings in their transport operations Readers employing these packag- ings for hazardous materials?" for an in met relative to using V-marked packag- be satisfied - including, for exam- 14 HAZMAT Packager & Shines ale encouraged to review the depth look at V-marked packaging. Copyright 2002 Packaging Research International, Inc. • 877-429-7447 • Reproduction Prohibited Warch/April 2002 <<>> Letter To: Mr.- John 7/1/0z Ruther ford 02-0124 Corbin, Gigi (DHM12) Sent: From: Burger, Donald To: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:45 AM Subject: Cc: Mazzullo, Ed; Wybenga, Frits; Hochman, Charles; Mitchell, Hattie Corbin, Gigi (DHM12) RE: Interpretation relative to the V marked package The as we discussed the only issue with the letter that I see is that we failed to mention that "the plastic inner packages vith that section, the person or laboratory performing the test would already know that the inners need to be "fragile" an eed to be 'fragile' in accordance with 178.601(g)(2)." But with that said, if the package were to be certified in accordanc the need to restate that requirement is redundant. If using the "most fragile" inner package was the intent of the variation, it is not conveyed by the way the variation is written, it only requires the inner package to be "fragile" not the "most fragile". Additionally, it is impossible to make a blanket statement about the fragility of one material in comparison to another. We design of the package. Thus we rely on the vague term fragile to define when this variation can be used. Fragile is can not say that glass is always more fragile that plastic or vice versa; it is all related to the type of glass or plastic and the defined as likely to break if not protected. in each of the other variations bit absent from variation 2. We can only infer that an equivalent level of safety is maintained Finally, the intro to 178.601(g)(2) makes no mention of maintaining an equivalent level of safety; it is specifically addressed through the testing of the "fragile" packages and replacing them with other inner packages. Don B From: -Original Message. Sent: To: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:28 AM Corbin, Gigi (DHM12) Subject: Burger, Donald FW: Interpretation relative to the V marked package Would you care to comment on Frits' e-mail. The UN Recommendations do not refer to the "most fragile" and they do not have the statement about an "equivalent level of packaging." Gigi Thanks. From: -- Original Message.... Sent: Mitchell, Hattie To: Corbin, Gigi (DHM12) Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:21 AM Subject: FW: Interpretation relative to the V marked package Please resolve. Thanks. From: -Original Message--- Sent: Wybenga, Frits To: Mazzullo, Ed; Mitchell, Hattie Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:28 AM Subject: Cc: Burger, Donald; Hochman, Charles; Richard, Bob; Pfund, Duane Interpretation relative to the V marked package Ed, Hattie - there is an interpretation to the V marked packaging requirement that was written up in the latest Hazmat of sing with the way other competent authorities would view the question. packager and shipper. I tend to agree with Andy's evaluation that we missed the mark on this and are somewhat out 1 <<>> The intent of the V marked packaging requirements was to take the most fragile inner packaging one could imagine and put it in the package and subject it to testing more severe than normally required. The thought was by qualifying the package with the most fragile inners anticipated the package it would then be suitable for all inner packagings. This thought is lost in the interpretation provided on 1786.601, July 11, 2002. We allow a plastic package but fail to mention that the tested inner must be fragile - the response does not cover the fragility of the plastic inner relative to maintained - we don't mention this either. I haven't read the requirement on manufacturers having to report shortages other inners that may be used. The intro to all the variations emphasizes that an equivalent level of safety must be to package fillers recently but would it be unreasonable to put some notation in there what the limitations on the use of the V marked packaging are? Please take another look at this interp - thanks. Deputy Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety Frits Wybenga Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 8321 Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Tel.: (202) 366-0656 E-mail: frits.wybenga@rspa.dot.gov Fax: (202) 366-5713 Website: http://hazmat.dot.gov/ 2 <<>> TSA Indianapolis 3173906921 03/17103 03: 33P P.001 Indianapolis Field Office Office of Security and Investigations Indianapolis, Indiana 46241 5420 West Southern Avenue, Suite 203 Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation Office: 317-390-6900 Fax: 317-390-6921 FAX Date: 3/17/03 _Time: 1520 Number of pages to follow: Recipient: Hattie mitchell Sender: Reginald McDaniel Agency:RSPA Fax No: Agency: FAA Title: Special Agent Message • Confidentiality Notice The documents accompanying this facsimile transmission may contain confidential information, which is legally facsimile in error, pl - **truncated:** true - **body characters:** 145972