{"operation":"document","citation":"06-0071","title":"Rieke Packaging Systems — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2006-07-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"06-0071 response to Rieke Packaging Systems concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0071.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0071.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0071","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060071.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJ.S. Department\nof Transportatior\n400 Seventh Street, S.W\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nHazardous Materials Safety\nJUL - 6 2006\nMr. Gary Baughman\nRef. No.: 06-0071\n500 West seventh Street\nRieke Packaging Systems\nAuburn, IN 46706\nDear Mr. Baughman:\nThik ding reston under De ember us mate lette regularding\nand answered as follows:\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Your questions are paraphrased\nQ1. Is a\nclosure design considered a new design type or does Variation\nsingle packaging (e.g., a drum) with an improved\n5 of\n§ 178.601 (g) (5) apply?\nA1. Changes in closures on single packagings are permitted\nin Variation 5. If the tests required in Variation 5 have\nwithout further design testing under the conditions prescribed\nbeen successfully completed, the new closure system is not\nconsidered a design change.\ndesign type if the design is found to perform equal or better\nQ2.\na drum with an improved closure design considered a new\nthan the original design type in accordance with Variation 5?\nA2. See Al.\nQ3. If a manufacturer has several drum design types of various\nthicknesses, may they recertify all the drum types by testing\nthe weakest design type with the new closure in accordance\nwith § 178.601 (g) (5)?\nA3. Yes.\nWhen a closure device has been qualified by neans of\nclosure device may be used on any packaging of the same type\nthe tests referenced in Variation 5, § 178.601 (g) (5), that\nat least the same integrity.\nReplacement closures and\ngasketings qualified under § 178.601 (g) (5) are also authorized\nwithout additional testing for different tested design types\n178-6011916)\n060071\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\npackaging, provided the original design type tests are more\npackagings of the same type as the originally tested\nconducted on the packaging with the replacement closures or\ntests which would otherwise be\ngasketings.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further\nquestions, please do not hesitate\nto contact this office.\nSincere\nA the 2.\nHattie L. Mitchell\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nPollack\nRieke®\n$178.601\nPhone 260925 3700 Fax 260 925 5262\n500 West 7th Street, Auburn, IN U.S.A. 46706\nwww.riekepackaging.com\nTesting\n06-001\nDecember 21, 2005\nDon Burger\nDOT, Office of Hazardous Material Standards\n400 7* Street SW\nUS DOT, RSPA, (DHM-10)\nWasington, DC. 20590\nRe: Testing Requirements of Improved Closures for Steel Drums\nDear Mr. Burger:\nI am requesting clarification of testing requirements for Rieke Corporation's improved\nViseGripII ™M closure system for steel drums. This is a follow up to meetings where we\ndiscussed the possibility of compliance of CFR49 178.601, exemption 5 and our position that\nthis closure system has demonstrated equal or significantly improved performance.\nrequirements for steel drums using this improved closure and when appropriate and active\nWe request you consider the information and questions to clarify container testing\nDOT approved qualification testing for Rieke ViseGrip® closures exists. Again we feel we\nvariation 5. We realize that many of these variations surrounding design are considered for\ncomply with the apparent desired controls provided for 178.601, variation 1 or 3 and beyond\neither combination (i.e. Var. 1) or single packages (i.e. Variations 3, 5); however, it is difficult\nto separate the purpose of transportation regulations specifically by construction and not\ngenerally apply them for all regulated packages.\nI will describe the matching characteristics of the previous and improved closure system. The\nclosures are same in raw materials, manufacturing methods, container installation methods\nand closure closing procedures.\nand extreme testing requirements of Packaging group II and I levels\nNow the most applicable improvement is: The closure has significant improvement at normal\nto 178.601 requirements. Testing was performed by accredited testing labs, manufacturers\n(178.603,178.604,178.605,178.606 &178.608). This has been consistently proven in testing\nfor self-certification, and others who have found improved closure performance.\nRieke packagingsystems\"\nA TriMas Company\nPROVIDING THE TOTAL PACKAGE\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nRicke®\nYour website contains important information and clarification for (HMR, CFR49, 171-180)\nregulations that possibly apply. The overall intent and purpose of these regulations are\ngermane.\nDOT regulations have recognized smaller closures for internal packaging can be\nsubstituted. 178.601, (g) (3) and are not considered a design change.\nDOT has allowed various gasket and thread systems to be considered as having\nequal performance and not considered design changes if they have equal or greater\nperformance by testing 178.601 (g) (5). Ref. No. 96-1027\nDOT has recognized that in containers of the same type and having equal or better\nintegrity, by meeting 178.601(g)(5) requirements, the improved closure would not be\nconsidered a design change. Ref. No. 96-1027,\nDOT has recognized on UN 1A1 containers that changes in closures and gasket\nmaterials are not considered a design change under the approval. Ref. No. 96-1088.\nQ.1. Are the improved closures not considered a design change by 178.601 (g) (3) Variation\n3 or 5, since the improved closures' sizes are identical to smaller by 7%, 10%, &14%, and\nthe changes have not reduced the closure effectiveness when evaluated to 178.601 (g) (5)?\nQ.2. Are the improved closures considered identical and not considered a design change if\nthe integrity of the container design is found the same or improved when evaluated to\n178.601(g) (5)?\nQ.3. Would a drum manufacturer, using nominal metal thickness of 0.9mm, 1.0mm &1.1mm\n(yielding 3 drums) and installing 1 to 4 prior closure openings into these 3 drums that are\ncurrently certified to the same UN rating be able to prove no reduction in integrity as\nspecified in 178.601 (g) (5) by evaluating the weakest design, i.e., the 0.9mm thickness with\n4 improved closure opening combination? If not, in this example what would need to be\nIf you have any questions, please call me at 260.925.3700.\nRespectfully,\nSenior Manufacturing Engineer\nGary Baughman\nGMB/dfs\nPRODUCTS\nRieke packagingsystems\"\nA TriMas Company\n•PROVIDING THE TOTAL PACKAGE","truncated":false,"body_characters":6253}