{"operation":"document","citation":"16-0154","title":"TEN-E Packaging Services Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2017-01-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"16-0154 response to TEN-E Packaging Services Inc. concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0154.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0154.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0154","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2017/160154.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nTEN-E Packaging Services, Inc.\n1666 County Road 74\nNewport, MN 55055\nReference No. 16-0154\nDear Mr. TenEyck:\nThis letter is in response to your September 21, 2016, email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the testing of non-\nbulk performance oriented packaging. Specifically, you ask about language in § 178.601(k)(2)\nthat states, \"provided the validity of the test results is not affected, several tests may be\nperformed on one sample with the approval of the Associate Administrator.\"\nYou seek confirmation of your understanding that the approval of the Associate Administrator as\nreferenced in § 178.601(k)(2) authorizes the reduction in number of samples for a particular\ntest—such as reducing the number of drums for the drop test from 6 drums to 3 drums and\ndoes not apply to the reuse of samples from one test sequence to the next. You further ask how\nthis section has changed over time.\nYour understanding is not correct. Section 178.601(k)(2) authorizes the use of one sample for\nmore than one test, such as using one sample for both the drop test and stacking test, provided\nthe validity of the tests is not affected and approval is granted from the Associate Administrator.\nThe HMR requirements and guidance for modification of the testing protocol for non-bulk\nperformance oriented packaging has remained consistent. See letters of interpretation 97-0215,\n10-0016, and 12-0120, which are consistent with the 2001 guidance. It is the opinion of this\nOffice that the October 11, 1995, denial letter was a misunderstanding of the incoming question\nbecause Steel Shipping Container Institute (SSCI) asked for approval to reduce the number of\ntest samples and we responded with regard to reuse of a sample across multiple tests.\nTo reduce the number of samples for a particular test method, such as reducing the number of\nsamples for a drop test from 6 drums to 3 drums, approval is required from the Associate\nAdministrator in accordance with § 178.601(h). We apologize for any confusion.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nShante -\nPlease log and assign to a specialist for response. Please request expedited handling.\nThanks,\nCharles\nFrom: Robert Teneyck [mailto:Robert.Teneyck@ten-e.com]\nSent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:49 PM\nTo: Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nSubject: DOT Clarification on the reuse of test samples\nHi Charles,\nPlease let me know if you have any questions concerning the attached. I know you guys are busy but if at all possible I\nwould appreciate if a quick response or maybe at least an indication as to which way you see it.\nThanks much.\nRobert TenEyck\nTEN-E Packaging Services, Inc.\n1666 County Road 74\nNewport, MN 55055\nPhone: 651-459-0671\nFax: 651-459-1430\nwww.ten-e.com\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nCharles Betts\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nStandards Development, PHH-11\n1200 New Jersey Avenue S. E.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nRef.: 178.601(k)(2)\nDear Charles:\nTEN-E Packaging Services is seeking an interpretation on the above subject section of Title 49 CFR.\nWe believe that the reference to obtaining approval from the Associate Administrator applies when\nsomeone wants to reduce the number of required samples for a given test sequence; for instance\nauthorization to drop test 3 drums instead of the required 6 drums. Our understanding is that this\nsection does not apply to the reuse of samples from one test sequence to the next; for instance 3\ndrums are used for the stack test and these same units are then used to carry out the hydrostatic\npressure test.\nThe agency first attempted to clarify this matter shortly after adoption of Section 178.601(k) under\nDocket HM-215A. At that time the Steel Shipping Container Institute (SSCI) applied for a CAA to reuse\nsamples and in a letter of interpretation dated October 11, 1995 their request was denied because\nction 178. the agency later was ned rohit inder there lores elanes see attacked in secre\n178,601(k)(2) has remained unchanged.\nTEN-E later followed in 2001 with basically the same question in a Third Party Agency Question and\nAnswer session and received the same agency response as was provided to SSCI (see attached\nQuestion #17).\nAre these two DOT clarifications still valid and if not when did the agency change its thinking on the\nreuse of packaging samples and the need to obtain a CAA for their reuse?\nWe look forward to hearing from you on this regulatory compliance matter.\nSincerely,\nRobert J. Ten Eyck\nDirector, Technical Services\nTEN-E Packaging Services, Inc.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nOctober 11, 1995\nMr. Richard B. Norment\nExecutive Director\nSteel Shipping Container Institute\n1101 14th Street, NW.\nWashington, D.C. 20005\nDear Mr. Norment:\nThis is in reply to your letter of June 5, 1995, requesting an approval under the\nprovisions of 49 CFR 178.601(k) as adopted in Docket 215A. Your request\nwas to authorize a reduction in the number of samples required for performing\nthe tests in SubpartM of Part 178.\nYour request for an approval is denied as unnecessary, for the following reason:\nThe Hazardous Materials Regulations do not prohibit the use of a single sample\nfor more than one test, provided the correct number of samples is used for a\nparticular test. In other words, samples which have been used for the stacking\ntest or leakproofness test may be used to conduct the drop test or hydrostatic\npressure test. The required number of samples must be maintained for each\ntest; for example, six separate samples must be used for the drop test.\nIt appears that the adoption of the approval provision of 49 CFR 178.601(k) in\nDocket HM-215A has created some confusion with regard to the required\nnumber of samples for performance testing. The Research and Special Programs\nAdministration is considering a clarification of the approval provision of 49 CFR\n178.601 (k).\nIf we can be of further assistance feel free to contact this office on\n202-366-4512.\nSincerely,\nJames Enoch Jones\nChief, Approvals\nOffice of Hazardous Materials\nExemptions and Approvals\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nthe Cobb test. The surface treatment is subsequently switched and the packaging still passes the Cobb, but\nMUGU\nscent to a box so te packaging can pass\nwith differing results. Is this still an identical packaging?\nThe Cobb test required by § 178.516 applies to the base material, not the finished packaging. A packaging that differs\nonly in surface treatment is not considered to be a different packaging.\n15. 15) § 178.601: What is the minimum information that must be provided in the test report for a UN\npackaging?\ndetailed so that the test can be reproduced, and the tested design type can be specifically identified through reference\nRSPA has not specified the level of detail that a test report must contain. However, the test report must be sufficiently\nto the test report. Sufficient information must be provided to ensure there is no change to the structural design, size,\nmeets the design standard. RSPA encourages packaging manufacturers and testers to develop uniform guidelines for\nmaterial of construction, wall thickness, or manner of construction as provided by § 178.601(c)(4) and every packaging\ninformation contained in test reports.\n16. 17) § 178.601: Why doesn't RSPA amend the HMR to allow box manufacturers and users to change liners\nand dividers in corrugated boxes, without the need for retesting the packaging?\nof construction is a different packaging. The only variances allowed are those set forth in § 178.601(c)(4)(i) through\nAs set forth in § 178.601(c)(4), a change in structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness, or manner\n(vi) and § 178.601(g). We have encouraged industry associations to further refine design type definitions, as has been\ndone for steel drums in § 178.601(g)(8), to ensure that minor variations in production processes do not result in\ntested fiberboard. However, we have not received adequate industry input to establish specifics with regard to\ndifferent packagings. We are working with industry to define limits for fiberboard that may be considered identical to\nfiberboard boxes.\n7. 18) § 178.601: Section 178.601(f) states: \"The manufacturer shall conduct the design qualification anc\nthe appropriate test section.\" Section 178.601(k) states: \"Provided the validity of the test results is not\neriodic tests prescribed in this subpart using random samples of packagings, in the number specified il\naffected and with approval of the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, several tests\ncould three drums used for the drop test also be used to conduct the hydrostatic pressure test?\nmay be performed on one sample.\" Is this indicating that a sample may only be used once? Or, for example\nThe HMR do not prohibit the use of a single sample for more than one test, provided the correct number of samples is\nused for a particular test. In other words, samples which have been used for the stacking test or leakproofness test\nfor each test; for example, six separate samples must be used for the drop test.\nmay be used to conduct the drop test or hydrostatic pressure test. The required number of samples must be maintained\n18. 3303% 03 eul re coider changi o copis on pia fagings a tag as there is mo continuous\nleakage, as is allowed for single packagings?\n178.603 to allow a slight discharge from a closure of a combination packaging if it ceases immediately after impact with\nUnder Docket HM-218 which was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2000, [65 FR 50450] we revised g\nno further leakage.\n(","truncated":false,"body_characters":9754}