{"operation":"document","citation":"11-0169","title":"Ropak Packaging — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2011-06-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"11-0169 response to Ropak Packaging concerning 173.22.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0169.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0169.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0169","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/110069.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nof Transportation Wasllington, DC 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration JUN 2 2 2011\nMr. Terry Iker\nRopak Packaging\n1350 Arthur Avenue\nElk Grove Village, IL 60007\nReference No.: 11-0069\nDear Mr. Iker:\nThis responds to your March 17, 2011 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to closure methods.\nSpecifically, you describe a scenario in which a company's primary closure method for a\nspecification plastic drum (included in its closing instructions) utilizes a pneumatic plunger\ntype lidder. You ask if using alternative methods of closure (such as roller lidders or a\nmallet), in addition to the primary closure method for the specification plastic drum,\nconstitutes a design change and thus, requires the package to be requalified?\nThe answer is yes. Section 173.22(a)( 4) requires a person to perform all functions necessary\nto bring the package into compliance with parts 173 and 178. It is the opinion of this Office\nthat using closure methods other than those specifically allowed by the specification\npackagings closure instructions would constitute a design change. Therefore, any package\nusing a closure method other than required by the specified closing instructions for that\npackage would need to be requalified. Ifyou make a design change, you are required to\nmaintain a record of each design qualification test in accordance with § 178.601(1). The test\nrecord must include a description of the packaging design type, including methods of\nclosure. You may maintain a single test record and test report identification number for\nidentical packagings that differ only in method of closure, provided each method ofclosure\nis documented in the test report and the packaging successfully passes the required tests\nwhen closed in accordance with each closure method identified in the test report.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nr-7o(/~ ~dZ~\nT.\nGlenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\n, Standards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nAndrew\n'isJ77··8oc>\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) §/77. S70\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11 :02 AM\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Request for clarification\nHi Carolyn,\nWe received the following request for a letter of interpretation at the Info Center.\nThanks,\nVictoria\nVictoria Lehman\nHazmat Information Center (HMIC)\nPipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,\nE21-119 Washington, D.C. 20590\nhttp://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/info-center\n(202) 366-1035\n-----Original Message----From:\nPHMSA-Feedback [mailto:PHMSA-Feedback]\nSent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:25 PM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter; PHMSA Webmaster\nSubject: Hazmat Information Center Feedback: Highway (Sections 177.800 &ndash; 177.870)\nPlease consider the following important request for clarification as there are potential\neconomic implications:\nThere is an ongoing debate between the plastic pail industry and PHMSA's Enforcement office\nas to whether a change in closure method (applying lid to an open head pail) constitues a\nchange in design?\nIf a company's primary closure method (also included in their Closing Instructions) utilizes\na pneumatic plunger type lidder, would they need to requalify the design if said company also\nchooses to include alternative methods of closure such as roller lidders or mallet on their\nClosing Instructions? Full engagement of lid to pail is integral to successful performance\ntesting. Closure method only needs to ensure this full engagement. As such, we are of the\nopinion that the design has not changed.\nThank you in advance for your consideration and review on this matter.\nName: Terry Iker\nOrganization: Ropak Packaging\nEmail: terryiker@ropakcorp.com\nAddress: 1350 Arthur Ave\nCity: Elk Grove Village\nZip Code: 60007\nPhone: 847-709-8080\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":3991}