{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0310","title":"SFB Plastic, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2009-02-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0310 response to SFB Plastic, Inc. concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0310.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0310.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0310","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080310.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave.. SE\n'Nash~ngton, DC 20590\nMr. John Fosse\nVice President-Sales\n1819 W. Harry Street\nWichita, KS 672 1 3\nRef. No. 08-03 10\nDear Mr. Fosse:\nThis responds to your November 20,2008 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171 -1 80). Specifically, you ask if you are\nrequired to have separate packaging test records and separate report identification numbers\n. for combination packagings that are identical (i.e., the same inner packagings, the same outer\npackaging and the same packaging configuration) except for closure method (e.g., one is\nclosed using 2-inch tape while another is closed using glue).\nThe answer is no. You are required to maintain a record of each design qualification test in\naccordance with 5 178.60 l(1). The test record must include a description of the packaging\ndesign type, including methods of closure. You may maintain a single test record and test\nreport identification number for identical packagings that differ only in method of closure,\nprovided each method of closure is documented in the test report and the packaging\nsuccessfblly passes the required tests when closed in accordance with each closure method\nidentified in the test report.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.\nSincerely.\nCharles E. Betts\nChief, Standards Development\nof Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n3178.6d1@3@\nP.O. BOX 533 . WICHITA, KS 67201\nNovember 20,2008\nDear Sirs:\nI would like to request that SFB Plastics, Iilc be given an exemption to 49 CFR section\n178.60 1 (4) (ii), . . .\"method of closure\". Tlis rule requires that separate UN certificate\nnumbers be assigned for a package with the only difference being different (outer carton)\nclosure requirements.\nSFB Plastics is a manufacturer of plastic bottles. We provide these empty bottles (in bulk\nand in boxes) to wholesale packaging distributors, who in turn resale these packages to\nfillers throughout the Midwest. Our bottles are sold in a variety of packaging\nconfigurations, with some of them being UN certified packages.\nAn example of the problem is as follows: We have a generic 4 pak box that has been UN\ncertified for approximately 6 years. We sell this package to many different packaging\ndistributors who in turn resale it to fillers for various applications. As you can imagine,\nthe fillers don't a11 want to close this box the same way. For example, some prefer to use\n3\" tape or glue instead of the standard 2\" tape. Some may not even close it the same way\nevery time. Accordingly, we have looked at the various closing combinations that our\ncusto~ners use and performed the appropriate UN tests for each combination. Each\ncombination is UN approved and has passed the drop and stack test. (All under one UN\ncertificate number.) We have typically not been concerned as to what customer uses\nwhich method so long as they follow one of the closure instructions that have been\nprovided to them for this package.\nIt has come to our attention that per 49 CFR section 178.601 (4) (ii) we are required to\nhave a different UN certificate number for each set of closure insh-uctions. Apparently we\nneed three identical boxes with the only difference being the UN certificate number. This\nwould mean that we must know which method of closure each customer wants and then\nprovide bottles to them in the box with the applicable UN certificate number. For the type\nof business that we are, it is not practical. We would be required to inventory 3 boxes\ninstead of one. This would triple the number of finished goods that we manufacture and\ngreatly increase the likelihood that a box could go to a customer who may close it\nimnproperly, thus becoming a UN regulation violation. This problem is compounded since\nour customer is the wholesale distributor who then resells the package to the filler,\nleading to inore chances for mistakes.\nWe are asking that we contii~ue to be able to use a singular certification number printed\non the outer package with a corresponding certification report indicating each method has\nsuccessfully passed required testing per 49 CFR 178.601. Since each of the closing\nmethods passes the TJN certification tests, there is no safety hazard presented with our\n--\n1819 W. HARRY ST. * WICHITA, KS 67213 - PHONE (316) 262-0409 FAX (316) 712-0112 * WVYW.SFBPLASTICS.COM\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nrequest. We sell over 1 inillion containers in various UN packages that we manufacture.\nWe would have to consider the termination of these paclcages as it would be\nadministratively impractical to ensure that each customer is using the proper closing\ncombination for the given box that they are using.\nPlease give us an exemption to 49 CFR section 178.601 (4) (ii), . ..\"method of closure\"\nfor our UN certified packages \"indefinitely\" based upon our specific circumstances.\nRegards,\nJohn Fosse 1\nVice President-Sales","truncated":false,"body_characters":5026}