# Ben Barrett — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **operation:** document - **citation:** 06-0129R - **title:** Ben Barrett — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **source type:** guidance - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** guidance - **official:** true - **published on:** 2018-05-16 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** 06-0129R concerning 178.601. - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0129r.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0129r.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0129r - **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/58861/060129r.pdf **body:** <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration MAY 1 6 2018 Ben Barrett Consultant DG Advisor, LLC 1930 E. Blue Ridge Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64146 Reference No. 17-0121; 07-0029R; 06-0129R Dear Mr. Barrett: This letter is in response to your October 31, 2017, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to closure instructions. Specifically, you ask for reconsideration of letters of interpretation previously issued by this Office under Reference Nos. 06-0129 (September 14, 2006) and 07-0029 (August 20, 2007) that state, "Changing the size (e.g., width) of the tape from that specified in the packaging test report and closure notification constitutes a change in design." You state that a change to a wider tape of the same type as that originally specified in the United Nations (UN) specification packaging test report would improve, rather than detract from the packaging's performance either under the UN performance tests or conditions normally incident to transportation. Having reviewed Reference Nos. 06-0129 and 07-0029 and the relevant requirements in the HMR, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration rescinds both letters and issues the following interpretation with respect to the matters disclosed within them. It is the opinion of this Office that a wider tape of the same specification (e.g., tensile strength and other relevant properties from industry testing standards) originally tested may perform the same when tested or transported. A different packaging as defined in § 178.601(c)(4) is one that differs (i.e., is not identical from a previously produced packaging in structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness, or manner of construction. The packaging manufacturer must specify the type(s) and dimensions of the closures, including components needed to satisfy the performance requirements, as required in § 178.2(c)(1)(i)(B). The manufacturer or other person certifying compliance with the specifications must notify, in writing, each person to whom the package is transferred of such requirements in accordance with $ 178.2(c). <<>> Therefore, increasing the width of the tape from that specified in the packaging test report and closure notification does not constitute a change in design, provided the tape is otherwise of the same specification originally tested. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Shane C. Kelley Standards and Rulemaking Division Director. Office of Hazardous Materials Standards <<>> hehman §178.60. Jesting Dodd, Alice (PHMSA) 17-0121 From: Foster, Glenn (PHMSA) Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 3:14 PM To: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA); January, Ikeya CTR (PHMSA) Cc: Heneghan, John (PHMSA); Kelley, Shane (PHMSA); Meidi, Rachel (PHMSA) Subject: Request for reconsideration of packaging tape width interpretations Attachments: 06-0129 Tape.pdf; 07-0029 Tape width.pdf Alice / Ikeya, Please check in the incoming from Ben Barrett as a request for Letter of Interpretation and assign to a Specialist. Thanks, Glenn From: Heneghan, John (PHMSA) Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 2:10 PM To: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA) ; Foster, Glenn (PHMSA) < Glenn.Foster@dot.gov> Cc: Meidi, Rachel (PHMSA) Subject: FW: Request for reconsideration of packaging tape width interpretations Guys, what is the right way for this to be requested for official action? Thanks John From: Ben Barrett [mailto:ben.barrett@dgadvisor.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 11:38 PM To: Heneghan, John (PHMSA) Cc: Delmer Billings < dbillings@dgac.org> Subject: Request for reconsideration of packaging tape width interpretations Hello John, I'm following up on our conversation from last week. Interpretation 06-0129 was issued in 2006. Answer 2 says that a wider version of an approved tape is considered a new design type and can't be used without additional testing and certification. Interpretation 07-0029 was issued in 2007 based on a request for reconsideration of Interpretation 06-0129, which was denied. I am requesting reconsideration of these interpretations based on a common sense approach consistent with current regulatory reform efforts. I don't see how there could be any logical doubt that a certain specification of tape would only be improved by using more of the same tape, in fact 06-0129 interprets extra layers of tape as being allowed. It seems that we should be referring to a minimum rather than an absolute, for which approach there is abundant precedence in the HMR. I am interested to engage further on this matter in whatever way would be helpful. I'm copying my colleague Del Billings who provided some assistance to me in this matter. 1 <<>> Thanks for your willingness to receive this request. Ben Ben Barrett, PE, Consultant DG Advisor, LLC Mobile & Text: +1 (816) 853-3508 Dangerous Goods Regulations Experts Email: ben.barrett@dgadvisor.com be inconsistent and uncertain; and there can be great difference of opinion as to the application, requirements and interpretation with respect to the DISCLAIMER: The matters upon which DG Advisor, LLC (Consultant) provides consulting services are highly technical; their regulation by public authority can matters upon which Consultant provides services. Therefore, Consultant shall use its best judgment in these matters, recognizing these factors and requirements. Consultant shall not be responsible for claimed loss on account of consulting services rendered by Consultant in good faith, and the recipient uncertainties that apply to same, and we do not warrant that compliance with any advice we provide will guarantee compliance with any legal or regulatory retains sole responsibility for compliance. The services of Consultant do not constitute legal advice. For legal advice, consult a lawyer. 2 <<>> of Transportation U.S. Department 200 New Jersey Ave. S ashington. DC 205s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration AUG 2 0 2007 Director, Technical Services Mr. Robert J. Ten Eyck Ref. No. 07-0029 1666 County Road 74 TEN-E Packaging Services, Inc. Newport, MN 55055 Dear Mr. Ten Eyck: constitutes a non-bulk packaging design change under the Hazardous Materials This responds to your letter dated January 30, 2007, requesting an interpretation of what previous interpretation issued by this office (06-0129) that states "Changing the size (e.g., Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask for reconsideration of a width) of the tape from that specified in the packaging test report and closure notification same specification as that originally certified would not detract from the packaging's constitutes a change in design." It is your opinion that a change to a wider tape of the performance either under the UN performance tests or conditions normally incident to transportation. We agree it is possible that a wider tape applied to a package may create a more "robust" package; however, it does not conclusively demonstrate how the package will perform when tested or transported. Additionally, a strict interpretation of the HMR does not provide for regulatory relief under such a scenario. One solution you may consider is to minimum width 2 inches" if you can conclusively ascertain that using wider tape will not annotate the test report and customer notification to read identical specification tape, impair the performance of the package as the design was originally tested. This recordkeeping solution would not constitute a different package design type provided a package assembler. This analogy could also be applied retroactively to previously tested minimum width or a range of widths of identical specification tape was applied by the package designs. Because our previous response (06-129) offered a similar solution to this issue, we consider our previously issued response to be valid and with merit. assistance. I trust this adequately responds to your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further Sincerely, Susan Gorsky Regulations Officer te of Hazardous Materials Standards 178.601 070029 <<>> Stevens TENDE $178.601 SETTINE THE STONORAT Testing 07-0029 January 30, 2007 John A. Gale U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Hazardous Materials Standards PHH-10 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration • 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Ref. No.: 06-0129 Dear John: TEN-E Packaging Services is writing to request a reconsideration concerning the interpreted design change when a shipper substitutes a wider tape of the same material specification to that which was "wider" variation of tape due to different box sealing equipment being employed at its various originally certified under UN combination package testing. A shipper may have reason to substitute a production operations. A change to a wider tape of the same specification as that originally UN certified would not, in TEN-E's opinion, detract from the packaging's performance either under the UN performance tests or conditions normally incident to transportation. Requiring a re-certification of this tape substitution places an unnecessary burden on industry and it is for this reason that we ask the agency to consider amending the above clarification. Sincerely, Huber tientish? TEV-E Packaging Services, Inc. Director, Technical Services TEN-E Packaging Services, Inc. 1666 County Road 74 Phone: 651-459-0671 Newport, MN 55055 Fax: 651-459-1430 : Web: www.ten-e.com Email: info@ten-e.com UNITED STATES - MN <<>> Washington, D.C. 20590 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Hazardous Materials Safety ipeline and Administration SEP 14 2006 Mr. Lonny Jaycox L. Smith Compan Ref. No.: 06-0129 311 South 39th Stres St. Louis, Missouri 63110 Dear Mr. Jaycox: This is in response to your May 30, 2006 email regarding the application of selective testing (esign 0), Spect is tested aud sai ted with a closure method speried in the no rection as 71-180). Specifically Lollitudi waily a on and spam with play scars age sting pair or one one sides of the carton, with tape adhered firmly in place." However, your company would like to use Tape XXXX, 72mm wide, which is different from the original notification. Your questions are paraphrased and answered below: some additional strips of the same tape, either in a similar manner slightly offset from the Q1: If a shipper complies with the closure method specified in the notification, then adds packaging design type" under the HMR and require retesting? flap seams, or in a different manner, would that package be considered a "different A1: The answer is no. A different packaging as defined in § 178.601(c)(4), is one that your company adds additional tape to your package, it would not be considered a different packaging design type. Q2: If a shipper uses the 72mm wide version of the tested 48mm wide tape and applies it consistent with the closure method specified in the notification, would that package be considered a "different packaging design type" under the HMR and require retesting? 178.1 178.819 060129 178.601 <<>> Aż: The answer is yes. Changing the size of the tape from that specified in the packaging est report and closure notification constitutes a change in design. To eliminate tais roblem, two packagings should be tested with the different tapes and the packaging notification amended to specify the actual widths or a range of widths. method specified in the notification, would that package be considered a "different Q3: If a shipper applied both 48mm and 72mm wide tape consistent with the closure packaging design type" under the HMR and require retesting? A3. See preceding answers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, John A. Gale Chief, Standards Development Office of Hazardoys Materials Standards <<>> Steven Jarman, Erin Reterbord Sent From: ljaycox@clsmith.com To: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:27 AM $178.1 Subject: Information Center Comments/Questions INFOCNTR 3178.814 Below is the result of your feedback form. (1jaycox@clsmith.com) on Tuesday, May 30, submitted by Lonnie Packagings 11:27:08. 06-0129 Email: ljaycox@clsmith.com Name: Lonnie Jaycox Category: Specifications for Packagings (Sections 178.1 - 178.819) F Organization: C L Smith Co. Street: 1311 South 39th Street City: St. Louis State: Missouri Zip Code: 63110 Phone: 314-771-1202 Fax: 314-773-2354 Comments: Scenario: closure method specified in the notification as follows: A performance oriented packaging design type is tested and certified, ani with a carton 'Tape XXXX, 48mm wide, poly PST, single strips top and bottom, centered botl sides of the carton, with tape adhered firmly in place." ongitudinally along and spanning the flap seams, extending a minimum of 2.5" onto the cceptable specification. This same tape is also available in 72mm widtł. ape XXXX, is a specific stock number manufactured by a particular vendor to a consistent identical tape just slit to the wider specification. (Tape is manufacturered in wide This would be "logs" then slit to width.) applied it consistent with the notification, to satisfy application equipment needs, or 02: If the shipper needed to use the 72mm wide version of the tested 48mm tape and from the desire for a more robust package (perhaps for parcel shipment); would that package be "different" under the regulations and require re-testing? of the tested tape applied consistent with the application variations in fi; would that 03: Assuming the answer to Q1 is yes: If the shipper needed to use the 72mm wide version package be "different" under the regulations and require re-testing? <<>> Washington, D.C. 20590 400 Seventh Street, S.W. peline an Administration azardous Materials Safe SEP 14 2006 Mr. Lonny Jaycox Ref. No.: 06-0129 1311 South 394 Street C.L. Smith Company St. Louis, Missouri 63110 Dear Mr. Jaycox: Variation 4 in § 178.601(g) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts This is in response to your May 30, 2006 email regarding the application of selective testing 171-180). Specifically, your state that your company has a performance oriented packaging follows: "Tape XXXX, 48mm wide, poly PST, single strips top and bottom, centered both lesign type that is tested and certified with a closure method s longitudinally along and spanning the flap seams, extending a minimum of 2.5" onto the to use Tape XXXX, 72mm wide, which is different from the original notification. Your sides of the carton, with tape adhered firmly in place." However, your company would like questions are paraphrased and answered below: Q1: If a shipper complies with the closure method specified in the notification, then adds some additional strips of the same tape, either in a similar manner slightly offset from the flap seams, or in a different manner, would that package be considered a "different packaging design type" under the HMR and require retesting? A1: The answer is no. A different packaging as defined in § 178.601(c)(4), is one that Q2: If a shipper uses the 72mm wide version of the tested 48mm wide tape and applies it onsidered a "different packaging design type" under the HMR and require retesting onsistent with the closure method specified in the notification, would that package b 178.1 118.819 060129 178.601 <<>> Steven Jarman, Erin Beterfore From: Sent: ljaycox@clsmith.com Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:27 AM $178.1 Subject: Information Center Comments/Questions INFOCNTR $178.819 Below is the result of your feedback (1jaycox@clsmith.com) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 was submitted by Lonnie Jaycox Packagings 11:27:08. 06 - 0129 Email: 1jaycox@clsmith.com Name: Lonnie Jaycox Category: Specifications for Packagings (Sections 178.1 - 178.819 F Organization: CL Smith Co. Street: 1311 South 39th Street City: St. Louis State: Missouri Zip Code: 63110 Phone: 314-771-1202 Fax: 314-773-2354 Comments: Scenario: closure method specified in the notification as follows: A performance oriented packaging design type is tested and certified, ani with a carton "Tape XXXX, 48mm wide, poly PST, single strips top and bottom, centered hoth ides of the carton, with tape adhered firmly in place. ongitudinally along and spanning the flap seams, extending a minimum of 2.5" onto the Tape XXXX, is a specific stock number manufactured by a particular vendor to a consistent, acceptable specification. This same tape is also available in 72mm widtł.. "logs" then slit to width.) identical tape just slit to the wider specification. (Tape is manufacturered in wide added some additional strips of the same tape, If a shipper applied the carton closure above in the specified manner first; then lift points; would that package be "different" under the regulations and require re- applied it consistent with the notification, to satisfy application equipment needs, or If the shipper needed to use the 72mm wide version of the tested 48mm tape and package be "different" under the regulations and require re-testing? from the desire for a more robust package (perhaps for parcel shipment); would that Q3: Assuming the answer to Q1 is yes: If the shipper needed to use the 72mm wide version package be "different" under the regulations and require re-testing? of the tested tape applied consistent with the application variations in fi; would that - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 17694