{"operation":"document","citation":"12-0096","title":"HMT Associates, L.L.C. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2012-07-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"12-0096 response to HMT Associates, L.L.C. concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0096.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0096.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0096","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2012/120096.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nMr. E.A. Altemos\nHMT Associates, L.L.C.\n603 King St.\nSuite 300\nAlexandria, VA 22314-3105\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington. DC 20590\nJUL 11 2012\nReference No.: 12-0096\nDear Mr. Altemos:\nThis responds to your email dated April 16, 20 11 requesting clarification of the intent of\nSelective Testing Variation \"5\" specified in§ 178.601(g)(5) of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). In your letter, you state it is your\nunderstanding that Variation \"5\" requires that specified leakproofness, hystrostatic, and\nstacking tests need only be performed on one sample (i.e., packaging), but the testing must\notherwise be performed in accordance with the requirements of each applicable section.\nYour understanding is that nothing in Variation 5 precludes the use of a test sample for more\nthan one required test, provided the validity of the test results is not affected.\nYour understanding is incorrect. Under the selective testing provisions of§ 178.601 (g),\nVariation \"5\" allows for a single packaging that differs from a tested design type only to the\nextent that the closure device or gasketing differs from that used in the originally tested\ndesign type without further testing, provided an equivalent level of performance is\nmaintained subject to the specific qualifying conditions.\nAs specified in§ 178.601(g)(5)(i), a packaging with the replacement closure devices or\ngasketing must successfully pass the drop test specified in the orientation that most severely\ntests the integrity ofthe closure or gasket. As specified in§ 178.601(g)(5)(ii), when\nintended to contain liquids, a packaging with replacement closure devices or gasketing must\nsuccessfully pass the leakproofness test specified in§ 178.604, the hydrostatic pressure test\nspecified in § 178.605, and the stacking test specified in§ 178.606. The test must be\nconducted precisely as specified in the referenced sections using the number of samples\nprescribed in the referenced sections. When performance tests are referenced in selective\ntesting, the number of samples specified in the individual series provision must be followed.\nSection 178.601(k) states that \"except as provided in this section, one test sample must be\nused for each test performed under this subpart.\" Therefore, PHMSA believes that\n§ 178.601 (k) requires that one test sample must be used for each test.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincere~y/ / .,\n---7~/?~:rG ~?~-\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.c.\n603 KING ST.\nSUITE300\nALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-3105\n703-549-0727\nAndre-uJs\n~ 178. (o()3\n-r-es+in3\n12.- oo q (p\nE.A. ALTEMOS\nPATRICIA A. QUINN\nFACSIMILJE: 703-549-0727\nWRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER\n703-549-0727, ext. 11\nApril 16, 2012\nMr. Charles Betts\nDirector, Standards and\nRulemaking (PHH-10)\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nDepartment of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nDear Mr. Betts,\nThis is to request confirmation of the intent of Selective Testing Variation 5 (see\n§ 178.601(g)(5)) in relation to the number of single packaging test samples required for\ntesting under that variation and whether a sample may be used for more than one test.\nSelective Testing Variation 5 provides that single packagings that differ from a\ntested design type only to the extent that the closure device or gasketing differs from that\nused in the originally tested design type may be used without further testing if\"£!\npackaging with the replacement closure devices or gasketing ... successfully pass[es] the\ndrop test specified in § 178.603 in the orientation which most severely tests the integrity\nofthe closure or gasket\" (emphasis added). As you know, §178.603 requires a total of6\ntest samples- three dropped in each of two orientations (with neither of the required\norientations necessarily being one that \"most severely tests the integrity of the closure or\ngasket\"). My understanding of the intent of Variation 5 based on its wording is that the\ndrop test need only be performed on one sample (i.e., \"a packaging\") by dropping in the\norientation most severely testing the closure/gasket- but otherwise in the manner\nprescribed in§ 178.603 (i.e., in terms of the required preparation of the samples for the\ntest, the \"target\" required, the drop height, and criteria for passing the tests). Any\ninterpretation that the number of samples and the drop orientations prescribed in\n§ 178.603(a) must be applied under Variation 5 would appear to render the variation null\nsince no provision would be made for reduction in the number of samples drop tested (as\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.\nMr. Charles Betts\nApril16, 2012\nPage 2\ncompared to the \"standard\" number of samples required) and neither of the drop\norientations prescribed in § 178.603 may necessarily be the orientation \"which most\nseverely tests the integrity of the closure or gasket\" as required under the variation.\nVariation 5 goes on to provide that for packagings intended to contain liquids, in\naddition to the drop test discussed above, \"a packaging with the replacement closure\ndevices or gasketing must successfully pass the leakproofness test specified in § 178.604,\nthe hydrostatic pressure test specified in§ 178.605, and the stacking test -specified in\n§178.606\" (emphasis added). As you know, the referenced sections require three\nseparate test samples for each of these three different tests. My understanding of the\nintent of Variation 5 based on its wording is that the specified leakproofness, hydrostatic\nand stacking tests need only be performed on one sample (i.e., \"a packaging\"), but the\ntesting must otherwise be performed in accordance with the requirements in the\napplicable section. Again, any interpretation that the number of samples prescribed in the\nleakproofness test in § 178.604, in the hydrostatic pressure test in § 178.605, and in the\nstacking test in § 178.606 must be employed under Variation 5 would appear to render the\nvariation null since no provision would be made for a reduction in the number of samples\ntested (as compared to the \"standard\" number of samples required).\nFinally, since nothing in Variation 5 precludes the use of a test sample for more\nthan one required test, my understanding is that, provided the validity of the test results is\nnot affected, a sample may be used for more than one test - for example, in both the\nstacking and the drop tests.\nConfirmation at your earliest convenience that the foregoing reflects the intent of\nSelective Testing Variation 5 in relation to the number of packaging test samples required\nfor testing and whether a sample may be used for more than one test will be greatly\nappreciated. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and please do not hesitate\nto contact me if you have questions or require additional information in relation to this\nrequest.\nSincerely, eecG£___\nE. A. Altemos","truncated":false,"body_characters":7155}