Over the years we have consulted with various companies and organizations finding solutions and cost-effective ways for them to remain compliant with the regulations.
Problem: Is your product classified correctly?
During a customized dangerous goods training class held at a medical product supply company, the Research & Development personnel challenged the Transportation personnel on whether a product was hazardous in transportation. Reviewing the MSDS with the instructor it was pointed out the formula for the product had changed. When had the product last been tested?
Solution(s): For proper and accurate classification a product should always be tested whenever there are changes to its dynamics or components. Don’t rely on old or outdated information. With proper testing the product could be re-defined as non-hazardous in transportation.
Learn to research regulations for exceptions, exemptions, etc. that can be applied to your products or shipments.
Results: The company has saved hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years because the majority of their products are no longer classified hazardous in transportation. They can be prepared and offered into transportation as non-regulated materials. They have not only saved on hazmat surcharges for transportation, but packaging and training costs as well.
Problem: Notice of Probable Violation and or Enforcement Investigative Report
A shipper had inadvertently offered an undeclared and improperly packaged, marked and labeled product for shipment by air. The shipment was damaged at a UPS sort facility, generating an incident and accident report to DOT/FAA. DOT visited the shipper’s facility to conduct an immediate audit for compliance with 49CFR. After several unsuccessful attempts by lower management to resolve the situation themselves, an Enforcement Investigative Report from DOT was sent via certified mail to the organization. Legal counsel was called upon for assistance in finding a solution. Legal counsel found Airpack / John Gerrish & Associates (JGA) through an internet search.
Solution(s): Requiring immediate corrective action to begin resolving the Notice of Probable Violation, Airpack and JGA were on site within days conducting hazmat classes. After class, in meetings with upper management, our instructor, John Gerrish, was asked the best means of litigating the Enforcement Investigative Report. John offered our consulting services to assist. Mr. Gerrish wrote a formal letter of request for reduction of penalty directly to the Agency Attorney of Federal Aviation Administration Office of Regional Counsel citing regulatory compliance and protocol. In the letter he outlined the corrective actions the violator had taken since the incident, outlined the function-specific hazmat training employees had received and changes to corporate policy and procedures to prevent future incidents. In closing the letter he respectfully requested the penalties by reduced by $25,000.
Results: Penalty was reduced by more than $50,000!
Problem: Securing Funding under Government FAR Clause for Hazmat Packaging
A freight company contacted Airpack expressing concern on accepting a medical supply company’s hazmat shipments. The same shipments had been refused numerous times causing delay in support of overseas military medical sites. While the freight company held the contract for delivery of the supplies, the shipper held the contract to provide the supplies. The shipper’s contract did not reveal the possibility of hazardous materials in transportation. The shipper had not calculated the additional costs for regulatory compliance of the materials. To maintain compliance the shipper would be taking a loss on each supply order placed.
Solution(s): First Airpack met with the freight company and the shipper, citing risk of legal and public exposure on failing to meet regulatory compliance and the immediate need of the medical supplies, we provided regulatory packaging services to expedite the delayed shipments. After getting the frustrated shipments moving forward, we reviewed the performance standards of the contracts. Within the shipper’s contract there was discovered a FAR Clause which allowed the shipper to be reimbursed by the government for the cost of hazmat compliance in fulfilling the contract. Any and all regulatory compliance service fees incurred in support of the contract would be fully reimbursed. The freight company was more than willing to accept compliant shipments, the shipper was able to provide shipments in accordance with the regulations and not lose money in the process.
Results: The company’s medical supply shipments were now offered in full compliance with the regulations and all costs associated with it were paid for by the Government.