# Rieke Packaging Systems — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **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:** Not available - **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:** <<>> J.S. Department of Transportatior 400 Seventh Street, S.W Washington, D.C. 20590 Pipeline and Administration Hazardous Materials Safety JUL - 6 2006 Mr. Gary Baughman Ref. No.: 06-0071 500 West seventh Street Rieke Packaging Systems Auburn, IN 46706 Dear Mr. Baughman: Thik ding reston under De ember us mate lette regularding and answered as follows: (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Your questions are paraphrased Q1. Is a closure design considered a new design type or does Variation single packaging (e.g., a drum) with an improved 5 of § 178.601 (g) (5) apply? A1. Changes in closures on single packagings are permitted in Variation 5. If the tests required in Variation 5 have without further design testing under the conditions prescribed been successfully completed, the new closure system is not considered a design change. design type if the design is found to perform equal or better Q2. a drum with an improved closure design considered a new than the original design type in accordance with Variation 5? A2. See Al. Q3. If a manufacturer has several drum design types of various thicknesses, may they recertify all the drum types by testing the weakest design type with the new closure in accordance with § 178.601 (g) (5)? A3. Yes. When a closure device has been qualified by neans of closure device may be used on any packaging of the same type the tests referenced in Variation 5, § 178.601 (g) (5), that at least the same integrity. Replacement closures and gasketings qualified under § 178.601 (g) (5) are also authorized without additional testing for different tested design types 178-6011916) 060071 <<>> packaging, provided the original design type tests are more packagings of the same type as the originally tested conducted on the packaging with the replacement closures or tests which would otherwise be gasketings. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincere A the 2. Hattie L. Mitchell Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention <<>> Pollack Rieke® $178.601 Phone 260925 3700 Fax 260 925 5262 500 West 7th Street, Auburn, IN U.S.A. 46706 www.riekepackaging.com Testing 06-001 December 21, 2005 Don Burger DOT, Office of Hazardous Material Standards 400 7* Street SW US DOT, RSPA, (DHM-10) Wasington, DC. 20590 Re: Testing Requirements of Improved Closures for Steel Drums Dear Mr. Burger: I am requesting clarification of testing requirements for Rieke Corporation's improved ViseGripII ™M closure system for steel drums. This is a follow up to meetings where we discussed the possibility of compliance of CFR49 178.601, exemption 5 and our position that this closure system has demonstrated equal or significantly improved performance. requirements for steel drums using this improved closure and when appropriate and active We request you consider the information and questions to clarify container testing DOT approved qualification testing for Rieke ViseGrip® closures exists. Again we feel we variation 5. We realize that many of these variations surrounding design are considered for comply with the apparent desired controls provided for 178.601, variation 1 or 3 and beyond either combination (i.e. Var. 1) or single packages (i.e. Variations 3, 5); however, it is difficult to separate the purpose of transportation regulations specifically by construction and not generally apply them for all regulated packages. I will describe the matching characteristics of the previous and improved closure system. The closures are same in raw materials, manufacturing methods, container installation methods and closure closing procedures. and extreme testing requirements of Packaging group II and I levels Now the most applicable improvement is: The closure has significant improvement at normal to 178.601 requirements. Testing was performed by accredited testing labs, manufacturers (178.603,178.604,178.605,178.606 &178.608). This has been consistently proven in testing for self-certification, and others who have found improved closure performance. Rieke packagingsystems" A TriMas Company PROVIDING THE TOTAL PACKAGE <<>> Ricke® Your website contains important information and clarification for (HMR, CFR49, 171-180) regulations that possibly apply. The overall intent and purpose of these regulations are germane. DOT regulations have recognized smaller closures for internal packaging can be substituted. 178.601, (g) (3) and are not considered a design change. DOT has allowed various gasket and thread systems to be considered as having equal performance and not considered design changes if they have equal or greater performance by testing 178.601 (g) (5). Ref. No. 96-1027 DOT has recognized that in containers of the same type and having equal or better integrity, by meeting 178.601(g)(5) requirements, the improved closure would not be considered a design change. Ref. No. 96-1027, DOT has recognized on UN 1A1 containers that changes in closures and gasket materials are not considered a design change under the approval. Ref. No. 96-1088. Q.1. Are the improved closures not considered a design change by 178.601 (g) (3) Variation 3 or 5, since the improved closures' sizes are identical to smaller by 7%, 10%, &14%, and the changes have not reduced the closure effectiveness when evaluated to 178.601 (g) (5)? Q.2. Are the improved closures considered identical and not considered a design change if the integrity of the container design is found the same or improved when evaluated to 178.601(g) (5)? Q.3. Would a drum manufacturer, using nominal metal thickness of 0.9mm, 1.0mm &1.1mm (yielding 3 drums) and installing 1 to 4 prior closure openings into these 3 drums that are currently certified to the same UN rating be able to prove no reduction in integrity as specified in 178.601 (g) (5) by evaluating the weakest design, i.e., the 0.9mm thickness with 4 improved closure opening combination? If not, in this example what would need to be If you have any questions, please call me at 260.925.3700. Respectfully, Senior Manufacturing Engineer Gary Baughman GMB/dfs PRODUCTS Rieke packagingsystems" A TriMas Company •PROVIDING THE TOTAL PACKAGE - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 6253