{"operation":"document","citation":"98-0213","title":"International Fibre Drum Institute — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1998-08-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"98-0213 response to International Fibre Drum Institute concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0213.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0213.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0213","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1998/980213.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n20590\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nAdministration\n•\nAUG 2 7 1998\nMr. Gordon Rousseau\nInternational Fibre Drum Institute\nRef. No. 98-0213\n1850 k Street, N.W.,\nSuite 200\nWashington, DC\n20006-3511\nDear Mr. Rousseau:\nThis is in response to your letter dated July 24, 1998, regarding\nthe gross mass marking on packagings that are shorter than their\noriginal design type.\nmark a packaging that is shorter than its original design type\nSpecifically, you ask if it is proper to\nwith the gross mass of the tested design type under the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nSection 178.601 (c) (4) provides that packagings \"which differ from\nthe design type only in their lesser design height\" are not, by\ndefinition, different packagings.\nthat a packaging must be marked with a \"designation of the\nSection 178.503 (a) (4) states\nspecific gravity or mass for which the packaging design type has\nbeen tested...\"\nThere is no requirement in the HMR to reduce the\nin design height.\ngross mass marking on shorter packagings because of a reduction\nTherefore, it is proper to mark shorter\npackagings with the gross mass marking of the tested design type.\nI hope this satisfies your request.\n:\nSincerely,\nThe\nomI. Allen\nfor Edward I. Mazzulio\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n178-601\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n•\nINTERNATIONAL\nFIBRE DRUM INSTITUTE\n1850 K Street, N.W.\nSuite 200\nWashington, D.C. 20006-3500\nPhone (202) 463-3511\nGale\nFax (202) 463-3512\n§178.601\nFriday, July 24, 1998\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n98-0213\nResearch & Special Programs Admn.\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nSome purchasers of fiber drums for shipment of hazardous solids request shorter drums\nthan those tested as the original design types. All other components of the drums remain\nunchanged, that is, diameter, material thickness, gasket type, closing ring style and size, location\nheight of the drum.\nand number of closures, etc. The only variation from the tested type is the reduction in the\nGiven the provisions of 49 CFR § 178.503(a)(4) which requires the performance marking\nand\nto be that of the packaging design type tested\ngiven § 178.601 (c)(4)(v) which states that reductions in the height of the packaging do\nnot constitute a \"different\" packaging,\nwe conclude that it is proper to mark the shorter packaging with the full performance marking\nbeing that of the tested design type.\npaper\" that provides our analysis of these DOT requirements.\nAs background to the issue, and because of questions that have arisen, I attach a \"white\nincerel\nLordon tara\nGordon Rousseau\nTechnical Advisor\nEnclosure\nCC:\nD. Core, SSCI\nP. Rankin, ACR\nC. Garrison, PDI\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n•\nMarking of shorter drums for solids which are of the same design type\nA. Problem\nRecently, IFDI has received several inquiries which we have discussed with other drum\nindustry representatives. The regulation in question, 49 CFR § 178.601(c)(1) and (4), states that\n\"Ipjackagings which differ from the design type only in their lesser design height\" are not\ntesting\" as required for \"each new or different packaging, at the start of production of that\nconsidered to be a \"different packaging\", when determining the application of \"design qualificatior\npackaging\". Inasmuch as these drums do not constitute \"different packaging\", the industry often\nchooses to apply the same markings to packaging qualifying under § 178.601 (c).\na shorter drum, e.g., 52 kilos for a taller unit tested to 75 kilos. I understand from a member that\nAn inspector has noted to a member that a manufacturer must mark a lesser quantity on\nat least one DOT inspector is informally advising a company that drums differing only from tested\ndrums by a lesser height, must be re-marked to reflect a lower gross mass. I am told that this is\nto note that this latter regulation has nothing to do with establishing the identicalness of\nbeing based on the language in a different, non-related section, § 178.601(g)(3). (It is important\npackaging from the design type test perspective.) My initial reaction is that the inspector is\ncommenters that this clearly could be seen by a customer as indicative of a different packaging,\nstating something that is in contradiction to the regulations. Furthermore, I agree with some\ni.e., one that it is less capable under the regulations than is indicated by the original design type\ntest report purported to cover it.\nB. Background\nDOT has stated in correspondence that, without testing, shorter packaging must not be\nqualified for any higher packing group or capability such as might be inferred by greater gross\nhave been advised by DOT representatives in the past that a packaging may be marked to a\nmass markings than as noted in the design type test reports. On the other hand, manufacturer's\nlesser packing group, specific gravity or gross mass than that at which tested, but this reduction\nin marking has always been at the discretion of the manufacturer. We are not aware, however,\nthat reductions in volume have required changes in markings on shorter packaging when the\ndesign type remains unchanged.\nto account for usage when the design type report that originally covered drums cited a higher\nI further understand that reconditioners, for example, may change specification markings\ncapability (SS 178.503(c)(2) and 173.28(c)(4)). But DOT has not required a reduced mark of\nthem unless it has been shown that a shorter packaging does not meet the applicable\nperformance requirements. The original design test report is the manufacturer's averment that\nconsistent.\nthe shorter packaging is covered by and meets the design type test report. This DOT action is\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nC. Explanation of the regulation, § 178.601(c)\n1. Intent of the regulation. The nature of § 178.601(c) is to indicate that DOT believes\nrequired tests as the originally tested container. Under the UN Recommendations, Chapter 6.1,\nthat this packaging, i.e., reduced only in its height, has the same capacity for passing the\nthe same provision is stated in 6.1.5.1.2. From the perspective of its ability to pass the various\nbe identical. It follows that DOT would not be expected to state that a taller drum, tested to e.g.,\ndesign tests (drop, leakproofness, hydrostatic, stacking), the shorter packaging is considered to\nat 75 kilos, may not be marked as meeting a 75 kilo test at the same packing group level in its\nshortened configuration. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that while accepting a\nwould simultaneously be finding the manufacturer of the identically performing shorter container\nperformance test report supporting the container's capability at a given capacity, the agency\nin violation for not marking it differently than what appears in the report. This would not be\nlogical.\nregulations supports the above fact that the gross mass marking on drums for solids is intended\n2. The specific requirement of the regulation. Further, a careful reading of the\nto reflect the actual tested weight for the design type. See § 178.503(a)(4) which in part reads as\n(a) *** A packaging conforming to a UN standard must be marked as follows:\n(1)*****\n(2)*****\n(3)*****\n(4) A designation of the specific gravity or mass for which the packaging design type\nhas been tested, as follows:\n(i) For packagings without inner packagings intended to contain liquids, the\nbe omitted when the specific gravity does not exceed 1.2; and\ndesignation shall be the specific gravity rounded down to the first decimal but may\n(ii) For packagings intended to contain solids or inner packagings, the\ndesignation shall be the maximum gross mass in kilograms; (Emphasis mine.)\nThus, it is clear that without the DOT's authorization to reduce the marking from the\ndesign type test, there is actually a requirement to mark the maximum gross mass found in the\napplicable design type test report.\nD. Applicability and relationship of the regulation § 178.601(g)\nParagraph § 178.601(g) is written to recognize some \"minor\" but potentially consequential\nvariations from the tested design type so DOT has required \"selective testing\" of a previously\ntested design type. The degree of change is controlled by the variation percentage limitation.\nThus, it follows that such packaging having more than just a lesser height variation, would need\nto be marked to reflect this reduction presumably because it is considered potentially less strong.\nThe only means to avoid this would be to put it through a complete new design test cycle at the\noriginal gross mass. In other words, this type of packaging is not included under § 178.601(c)\nwhere packaging is considered to be identical. If the only variation is a lesser height, then\n§ 178.601(c) would apply and testing is not required.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nE. Conclusion\nVariation 3 is a conditional, permissive regulation because it recognizes that although\nthere have been minor changes, full-scope design type testing need not be applied. Thus, the\nselective testing concept is applied, in contrast to § 178.601(c) where no additional testing\napplies. This is because in making other changes than lessening the height alone which is\npermitted by § 178.601(g), the capability of the packaging has possibly been changed. It is\nbe applied.\nconsistent then to find that selective testing is conditioned on the fact that a reduced mark must\nIn contrast, the packaging under §178.601(c)(4)(v) is regarded as capable of passing the\noriginal design type tests without further verification, and hence it is not considered by DOT to be\na different packaging by virtue of a reduction in height alone.\nF. Summary\npackagings which are considered identical. This obviously is based on their capability under the\nin summary, as noted above, the goal of § 178.601(c) is to identify under the regulations\nUN performance tests. Thus, § 178.601(c) is to recognize that these packagings are not of a\ndifferent capability and that the design type test report may be accepted as evidence of that fact.\nIt is clear that a shorter drum of the same design type that was tested to the mass in the\ndesign report, when filled to this weight, has been deemed capable of passing the same drop\nlest. This is the very essence or concept of the \"lesser height\" regulation, § 178.601(c)(4)(v)\nThe marked gross mass cannot indicate a greater allowable mass for the filled unit than tha\ntested but the rule does not require that a lesser mark must be applied.\nIFDI\nWashington, DC\nJuly 23, 1998","truncated":false,"body_characters":10564}