{"operation":"document","citation":"98-0284","title":"The Boeing Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1998-11-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"98-0284 response to The Boeing Company concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0284.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0284.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0284","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1998/980284.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nResearch and\nWashington, D.C.\n20590\nspecial Programs\nAdministration\nNOV | 6 1998\nMr. Scott Chapman\nThe Boeing Company\nRef. No. 98-0284\nAirline Logistics Support\nDept. P62, MC:DOC6-0021\n3855 Lakewood Boulevard\nLong Beach, California 90846-0001\nDear Mr. Chapman:\nThis is in response to your letter of September 17, 1998 requesting clarification of the requirements for\ncertification of a UN standard packaging under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR\nparts 171-180). Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1. A packaging is tested and certified to a UN standard. The materials of construction are now\nbe tested and certified as a different packaging?\npurchased from a different manufacturer than the originally tested packaging. Must the packagings now\nA.\nIf the materials of construction are virtually identical to the materials in the originally tested\npackaging no new testing is required. For example, fiberboard that is manufactured by different\ncompanies but has identical burst strength, fluting, basis weight, edge crush, etc. may be used\ninterchangeably in a packaging without any further testing regardless of who actually manufactures the\nmaterials.\nQ2. A facility uses a test report to identify the specifications of the materials of construction requested\nfrom a manufacturer and specifies that it is mandatory that the materials of construction have exact or\nbetter physical properties. Who is responsible for ensuring that the materials of construction actually\nmeet these standards?\nA. Whoever is identified on the packaging as the manufacturer has the responsibility to ensure that the\npackaging meets the UN standard to which it is certified.\nQ3. May the materials of construction be different from the originally tested design type if the materials\nof construction have stronger properties than those originally tested?\n• ...\nA. The answer is no: Unless it can be ascertained that the materials of construction are virtually\nidentical it is considered a new packaging and subject to design qualification testing.\n-\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ4. If a facility: (1) qualifies a design to a UN standard; (2) documents the packaging design; (3)\nsubmits to RSPA a detailed operating procedure outlining procurement and controlled Quality\nAssurance program could they be granted relief from the periodic retesting requirements of\n§ 178.601 (e)?\nA. As provided by § 178.601(h) a packaging that is tested using test intervals other than those\nspecified in Subpart M of Part 178 may be used if approved by the Associate Administrator for\nHazardous Materials Safety. Instructions for applying for an approval are described in § 107.705.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n6-28-2000\n2:53PM\nFROM HMT ASSOCIATES LLC 202 463 3512\nP. 2\n•\n:\n178.601\nof Transportation\nUS. Department\n400 engton, S.c. .\n2059\nResearch and\nSpectal Programs\nAdministration\nNOV 1 6 1998\nMr. Scott Chapman\nRef. No. 98-0284\nThe Boeing Company\nAirline Logistics Support\nDept P62, MC:DOC6-0021\n3855 Lakewood Boulevard\nLong Beach, California 90846-0001\nDear Mr. Chapman:\nThis is in response to your letter of September 17, 1998 requesting clarification of the requirements for\ncertification of a UN standard packaging under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR\nparts 171-180). Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1. A packaging is tested and certified to a UN standard. The materials of construction are now\npurchased from a different manufacturer than the originally tested packaging. Must the packagings now\nbe tested and certified as a different packaging?\nA.\nIf the materials of construction are virtually identical to the materials in the originally tested\npackaging no new testing is required. For example, fiberboard that is manufactured by different\ncompanies but has identical burst strength, fluting, basis weight, edge crush, etc. may be used\ninterchangeably in a packaging without any further testing regardless of who actually manufactures the\nmaterials.\nQ2. A facility uses a test report to identify the specifications of the materials of construction requested\nfrom a manufacturer and specifies that it is mandatory that the materials of construction have exact or\nbetter physical properties. Who is responsible for ensuring that the materials of construction actually\nmeet these standards?\nA. Whoever is identified on the packaging as the manufacturer has the responsibility to ensure that the\npackaging meets the UN standard to which it is certified.\nQ3. May the materials of construction be different from the originally tested design type if the materials\nof construction have stronger properties than those originally tested?\nA. The answer is no. Unless it can be ascertained that the materials of construction are virtually\nidentical it is considered a new packaging and subject to design qualification testing.\n178.601\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n'SEP-17-1998\n12:56\nSPARES OPERATION - C6-P62\n310 533 7897 P.Ø1/Ø3\n9/17/98\nlavalle\nTHE BOEING COMPANY\nAIRLINE LOGISTICS SUPPORT\n8178.60)\n3855 Lakewood Boulevard\nLong Beach, California\n90846-0001\n98-0284\nDIANE\nL.\nPackaging Engineering Group - Department P62\nMail Code - MC: D0C6-0021\nTO: BOBRICHARD\nFROM: S. W. CHAPMAN\nDEPT.: US Department of Transportation\nSt. PACKAGING ENGINEER\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nDEPT.: P 70\nPHONE: (202) 366-0656\nFAXNo.: (202) 366-5713\nPHONE: (310) 533-7543\nFAX No.: (310) 533-7476\nSUBJECT: Forming shipments of hazardous materials using UN certified package designs involving packagings\ncontained within packages certified by The Boeing Company and supplied by vendors or packaging material\nmanufacturers, and considering shipments packed in \" as tested condition \" as required by law.\nвОВ,\nrechnical instructions and CFR 49, I am faxing you this as requested to clarify the use of designed packagings and packages\nAs per our telephone conversations, questions and answers received by your organization and paragraphs within ICAO\nthat have passed performance test requirements.\nReferences:\nICAO technical instructions\nCFR 49 Subpart M - Testing of Non-Bulk Packagings and Packages, Paragraph 178.601 and related paragraphs.\nparagraph 178.601\nHAZMAT Packager & Shipper March/April 1998 issue page 57 article by Edward T. Mazzullo in reference to\nQuestions and answers replied to me, signed by you for Frits Wybenga June 24 1998 US D.O.T. RSPA - specifically\nquestions 11, 12 and 13.\nSynopsis: The Boeing Company performs P.O.P. testing for a variety of roquired package designs to meet and in many\ncases exceed minimum requirements for testing non-bulk packagings and packages proposed for use to ship regulated\nhazardous material. The Boeing Company also contracts to third party laboratories for resting of proposed package designs\nand maintains test reports issued by third party labs and tests reports generated by The Boeing Company. As you may\nhazardous material regulatory committee and standardize the way the corporation will regulate shipments of hazardous\nknow, mergers have occurred involving Boeing that has required the need to investigate the possibility to form a corporare\nmaterial. Currently, multiple locations within the US are performing tests and certifications for package designs to cover a\nvariety of regulated hazardous materials. Currently this committee is considering regulating all package materials used to\nconsolidation of efforts across the US, we are attempting to eliminate duplication of effort, streamline the process of\npackage Hazmat and issue those qualified materials out of one or more location(s). By forming a committee, with ultimate\nformulating hazmat shipments and form common knowledge and understanding to ensure compliance in all respects to\nconform to Hazardous Materials Regulation.\nPAGE 1 OF 3\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n-SEP-17-1998 12:56\nSPARES OPERATION - C6-P62\n310 533 7897 P.02/03\n9/17/98\nMy understanding is that if Boeing tests and certifies package designs per the regulations, and we obtain materials used to\nship hazardous materials that we ensure are equal to that of the originally UN tested design with regard to \"material and\nthickness\", \"manner of construction\", and in the case of fiberboard packaging materials, meets the Cobb test requirements,\nthat we may do so and consider it to be in \"as-tested\" condition per the regulations. Regardless of what manufaoturing\nentity, in the case of corrugated fiberboard products, converted the wood chips into paper, converted the paper into\nthe case of a regular slored carton for instande the lap joint being stitched or glued or in the case of full-telescoping\ncorrugated fibcrboard sheer-stock, converted the sheet stock into a fiberboard container (4G) etc.... considering only, ™\ncontainers, the quantity of staples used to form the container.etc... These processes are considered standard practice in the\ncorrugated container industry and as long as we (Boeing) consider, as in the case of a corrugated fiberboard product:\nMaterial\na) basis weight of the liner-medium combination stipulated in Ibs. Per thousand square feet example: 69-42-69 in the\ncase of 275lb. test corrugated fiberboard,\nc) quality of the paper products such that it will not crack or delaminate when used as intended,\nb) meets Cobb test requirements,\nThickness\nd) caliper measurement for thickness of the liners and mediums, and ultimate caliper of the corrugated sheet\ncombined liners and mediums,\nManner of construction:\nc) fiberboard formed with water-resistant adhesive, coatings or additives applied etc\nf) style of container\ng) means of joining together or forming of the container eIc..\nthen we meet the requirements of the regulations to produce packaging equivalent to the originally tested package. This\nsame philosophy would apply to all packaging materials used to package and ship Hazmat as well.\nQuestion I: If we (Boeing) test and certify a proposed package design to be used for shipment of hazardous material that\nis designed using corrugated fiberboard matcrials and we document components of the package configuration, to the detail\nas outlined above, to b'é contained within the body of the rest report, could we procure corrugated products from an!\norrugated products manufacturing/distribution entity that wo have qualified to produce their product equal to what i\ndocumented on our test report and use these corrugated fiberboard products for production runs or distribution of\nhazardous materials?\nQuestion 2: If we were to use this test report as a procurement specification with a statement added to the effect that these\nmaterials to be purchased will be used to ship regulated hazardous matcrials and it is imperative that we receive their\nproduct in the form and with the exact or better physical properties described and contained therein, could we Boeing\nconsider this binding in a court of law or is it still the responsibility of Boeing to maintain a quality control program to\nensure shipping hazardous material using equal to or greater than the originally rested package.\nQuestion 3: Could we extend the same principal to all packaging supplies obtained through what could be our D.O.T.\n(RSPA) approved quality assurance program and comptitively bid all packaging from any qualified packaging product\nmanufacturer?\n1 understand that packagings and packages uscd to ship hazardous materials must be configured, have the same structural\nto not provide guidelines for using packages that are fabricated using stronger or thicker wall thickness to ship production\nintegrity and physical properties as the originally tested package configuration. I also undersiand the regulation as writter\nruns/distribution of packages containing regulated hazardous materials.\nPAGE 2 OF 3\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n\"SEP-17-1998 12:57\nSPARES OPERATION - CS-P62\n310 533 7897 P.Ø3/03\n9/17/98\n• Question 4: Could we (Boeing) test and certify package designs that are fabricated and documentod to have weaker\nhazardous material and actually ship a stronger container? (with respect to material and thickness as outlined above)\nproperties or less-than or thinner wall thickness than the intended package to be used for production runs / distribution of\nExample: Test and certify a corrugated fiberboard container using 200 lb test corrugated fiberboard consisting of\n42 - 26-42 liner/medium combination but order and ship at our discretion using 275 Ib test corrugated fiberboard\ncontainer consisting or a 69 - 42 - 69 liner medium combination.\nQuestion 5: If the answer to Question 4 is yes, how much stronger with regard to material and thickness is acceptable?\nBy not having a \"greater than\" defined specifically speaking about corrigated fiberboard products, and not allowing a\nbuilt-in safety factor, a manufacturer/shipper of UN tested packages is sure to vary to the lesser-than category when using\ncorrugated fiberboard products.\nThis concept would enable shippers of Hazmat to better control the variance within the corrugated fiberboard\nproducts industry. During the five years as a packaging engineer in the paperboard industry I was able to see some of the\nstock. Right now 1 know companies are struggling with testing and certifying package designs that have passed previously\nvariances associated with procurement, manufacture and delivery of finished corrugated products made from paper roll\nbut failed subsequently due to variance within corrugated fiberboard manufacturing and procurement process. This idea\nwould enable Hazmat package manufacturers to ship with a confidence that a better than tested design is being used for\nproduction runs or distribution of hazardous materials.\nBeing in the Aerospace packaging industry, providing designs and performing testing, I also have seen the\ndifferences in cushioning mediums with regards to shock and vibration transmissibility. By building a stronger package,\nyou could conceivably change shock and vibration mitigation ultimately changing levels transmitted to the inner\npackaging, specifically for the drop test, therefore, consideration in acceptable variance to greater-than should be reviewed.\nQuestion 6: If Boeing qualifies a design as required by UN standards and documents to the detail outlined above for any\nproposed Hazmat packaging design and provides to the Department of Transportation (RSPA) a detailed operating\nbe used for shipment of Hazmat and copies of all proposed designs to be implemented and their intended use, could Boeing\nprocedure outlining procurement, controlled Quality Assurance program for all incoming packaging materials proposed 1o\nbe granted relief from the periodic re-test requirements of two years for combination packages and one year for single or\ncomposite packagings used for non-bulk packaging as stated in 178.601 4(e)?\nassurance program changes?\nQuestion 7: Could periodic re-zest requirements be waived until a design change or procurement function or quality\ncertified packaging design?\nQuestion 8: What is required and/or what is the process for obtaining relief from periodic re-resting of a documented,\nConclusion:\nIf a design type is proven / certified to survive an environment normally incident to transportation, and it is a requirement\nto duplicate that certified package \"as tested\" for all subsequent use in shipments, and a sampling and vendor qualification\nprocess is maintained, what value is added to perform a test on what is in essence a 1 second to 5 minute run sampling of\nproduct by sampling received shipments and documenting specific physical properties regarding \"material and thickness\"\nproposed to be used packaging components every one or two years? It is my opinion the requirement to qualify a vendors\nand \"manner of construction\" would be more effective than re testing an already proven design concept sampled every one\nor two ycars. We are required to ship \"as-tested\" condition packages of a proven design type. Variables would be more\nconstruction\" and \"material and thickness\" for the specific packaging commodity proposed for use. Specific checks and\nreadily captured by sampling subsequent shipments if standard sampling procedure in adopted to check \"manner of\nbalances could prove more reliable and ensure hazardous material is shipped in qualified packaging. A sampling procedure\napproved by the D.O.T. implemented by the UN certified package manufacturer would eliminatc redundant design\nThank you,\nqualification and ensure design duplication for all subsequent use.\nSincerely\nSom laguar\nPAGE 3 OF 3\nTOTAL P.03","truncated":false,"body_characters":16696}