{"operation":"document","citation":"11-0195","title":"Gh Package/Product Testing and Consulting, Inc — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2011-11-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"11-0195 response to Gh Package/Product Testing and Consulting, Inc concerning 178.516.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0195.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0195.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0195","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/110195.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nof Transportation Washington. DC 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nNOV 1 6 2011\nPerry Hock\nGh Package/Product Testing and Consulting, Inc.\n4900 Thunderbird Lane\nFairfield, OH\nRef. No.: 11-0195\nDear Mr. Hock:\nThis responds to your letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the use of third party markings\non packaging not authorized for use under the HMR. Specifically, you ask if a third party\nlaboratory should assign its approval number to packagings (such as a large packaging,\nIntermediate Bulk Container, or non-bulk Packaging) that pass all required tests, but are\nstill required to obtain approval from a DOT competent authority to ship the package.\nThe answer to your question is no. While the third party laboratory may provide a test\nreport to the shipper, the shipper is still required to apply for a competent authority\napproval (CAA) for the packaging before the certification number can be assigned to the\npackaging.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 3:51 PM\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Hazmat Safety Feedback: Other\nHi Carolyn,\nWe received the following request for a letter of interpretation at the HMIC.\nThanks,\nVictoria\nVictoria Lehman\nHazmat Information Center (HMIC)\nhttp://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/info-center\n(202) 366-1035\n-----Original Message----From:\nPHMSA-Feedback [mailto:PHMSA-Feedback]\nSent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:22 AM\nTo: HMIS (PHMSA)j PHMSA Webmaster\nSubject: Hazmat Safety Feedback: Other\nI would like to request a formal interpretation about the use of the third party mark/symbol\nand packagings not authorized for shipment in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49.\nSpecifiallYJ the use of the mark as it pertains to Large Packagings.\nI work for an approved 3rd party test facility and we would like clarification on the use of\nour certification mark/appr.oval symbol.\nIf the large packaging is not authorized by the CFR 49 - such as a large packaging for airbag\ninflators or modules, do we as a laboratory assign our approval mark, the u+AP\" and\ncertification number, if the large packaging passes all the required tests? I ask since the\npack still requires DOT Competent Authority Approval to ship the pack.\nI personally have two trains of thought:\n1. The +AP signifies to the DOT and the shipper that the pack passed all the required\ntests for large packagings. As pursuant to the CFR 49, it is the shippers responsibility to\nthen ensure the pack is authorized or approved by the DOT. If the shipper requires the\nCompetent Authority Approval (CAA)J the shipper would then apply for the CAA. It is the\nreponsibility of the shipper to and comply with the CFR and all the parts of their CAA.\n2. The pack is not authorized by the CFR 49, thus the +AP is not allowed (unless\nexplicitly stated in the Competent Authority Approval that the pack must be tested by an\napproved third party lab) and the shipper must self certify the pack after the DOT has issued\nthe CAA.\nI would also like consideration on this matter to include Intermediate Bulk Containers and\nNon-Bulk packagings that are not authorized in the CFR 49, and therefor would require CAA\napproval for shipment.\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nRegards,\nPerry Hock\ngh Package / Product Testing and Consulting, Inc.\nName: Perry Hock\nOrganization: gh Package/Product Testing and Consulting, Inc.\nEmail: phock@ghtesting.com\nPhone: 5138700080\nFAX: 5138700017\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":3769}