Interpretation Response #98-0245 ([Fluoroware, Inc.] [Mr. Bany Rauworth])

Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 10/19/1998

Company Name: Fluoroware, Inc.

Individual Name: Mr. Bany Rauworth

Location State: MN Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

OCT 19, 1998

Mr. Bany Rauworth                      Ref No. 98-0245
Fluoroware, Inc.
102 Jonathan Boulevard
North Chaska, Minnesota 55318

Dear Mr. Rauworth:

This is in response to your letter dated August 18, 1998, regarding your client's concerns relative to the transportation of hazardous materials in a dual marked container, under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR 171-180).

Your company, Fluoroware, Inc., manufactures containers used for the transportation of "Nitric acid." Fluoroware Inc., was also the holder of exemption "DOT -E-9316" to manufacture, mark and sell composite drums that utilize PF A Teflon liners as the primary containment and polyethylene or steel outer packagings for the shipment of up to 71 % Nitric acid mixture. Although Fluoroware, Inc., no longer manufactures these packagings under the above-mentioned exemption, it continues to sell such packagings manufactured and marked to the UN standard. Your clients (shippers) who use these containers for the shipment of regulated materials are concerned that the containers permanently dual marked with both the UN standard marking and the exemption number could cause confusion among the enforcement community. You asked if your understanding is correct that the exemption number can remain on the container as long as the exemption is not being used as a means to ship the regulated materials.

As you are aware, RSPA issued a final rule [DocketHM-181H; 61 FR 50616; 9/26/96], which revised 49 CFR 173.158(£)(1) to authorize 6001 and 6HAI composite packagings with PFA Teflon inner receptacles for nitric acid concentrations of70% or less. The composite packagings, having been previously authorized under several exemptions, had demonstrated an equivalent level of safety.

Your understanding is correct. The prohibited marking requirements, in 49 CFR 172.303, do not require removal or obliteration of the exemption number from the packaging, even when the packaging is not being used under the terms of the exemption. However, in order to minimize confusion or frustration of the shipment, you may wish to cover or obliterate the exemption number marking when the packaging is not being used under the terms of the exemption.

I hope this satisfies your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Delmer F. Billings
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

172.301

Regulation Sections