{"operation":"document","citation":"17-0121","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":null,"summary":"17-0121 concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-17-0121.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-17-0121.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-17-0121","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/58071/170121.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nMAY 1 6 2018\nBen Barrett\nConsultant\nDG Advisor, LLC\n1930 E. Blue Ridge Boulevard\nKansas City, MO 64146\nReference No. 17-0121; 07-0029R; 06-0129R\nDear Mr. Barrett:\nThis letter is in response to your October 31, 2017, email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to closure\ninstructions. Specifically, you ask for reconsideration of letters of interpretation previously\nissued by this Office under Reference Nos. 06-0129 (September 14, 2006) and 07-0029\n(August 20, 2007) that state, \"Changing the size (e.g., width) of the tape from that specified in\nthe packaging test report and closure notification constitutes a change in design.\" You state that\na change to a wider tape of the same type as that originally specified in the United Nations (UN)\nspecification packaging test report would improve, rather than detract from the packaging's\nperformance either under the UN performance tests or conditions normally incident to\ntransportation.\nHaving reviewed Reference Nos. 06-0129 and 07-0029 and the relevant requirements in the\nHMR, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration rescinds both letters and\nissues the following interpretation with respect to the matters disclosed within them.\nIt is the opinion of this Office that a wider tape of the same specification (e.g., tensile strength\nand other relevant properties from industry testing standards) originally tested may perform the\nsame when tested or transported. A different packaging as defined in § 178.601(c)(4) is one that\ndiffers (i.e., is not identical from a previously produced packaging in structural design, size,\nmaterial of construction, wall thickness, or manner of construction. The packaging manufacturer\nmust specify the type(s) and dimensions of the closures, including components needed to satisfy\nthe performance requirements, as required in § 178.2(c)(1)(i)(B). The manufacturer or other\nperson certifying compliance with the specifications must notify, in writing, each person to\nwhom the package is transferred of such requirements in accordance with $ 178.2(c).\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nTherefore, increasing the width of the tape from that specified in the packaging test report and\nclosure notification does not constitute a change in design, provided the tape is otherwise of the\nsame specification originally tested.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nShane C. Kelley\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\nDirector.\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nhehman\n§178.60.\nJesting\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\n17-0121\nFrom:\nFoster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nSent:\nWednesday, November 01, 2017 3:14 PM\nTo:\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA); January, Ikeya CTR (PHMSA)\nCc:\nHeneghan, John (PHMSA); Kelley, Shane (PHMSA); Meidi, Rachel (PHMSA)\nSubject:\nRequest for reconsideration of packaging tape width interpretations\nAttachments:\n06-0129 Tape.pdf; 07-0029 Tape width.pdf\nAlice / Ikeya,\nPlease check in the incoming from Ben Barrett as a request for Letter of Interpretation and assign to a Specialist.\nThanks,\nGlenn\nFrom: Heneghan, John (PHMSA)\nSent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 2:10 PM\nTo: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA) <shane.kelley@dot.gov>; Foster, Glenn (PHMSA) < Glenn.Foster@dot.gov>\nCc: Meidi, Rachel (PHMSA) <rachel.meidl@dot.gov>\nSubject: FW: Request for reconsideration of packaging tape width interpretations\nGuys, what is the right way for this to be requested for official action?\nThanks\nJohn\nFrom: Ben Barrett [mailto:ben.barrett@dgadvisor.com]\nSent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 11:38 PM\nTo: Heneghan, John (PHMSA) <John.Heneghan@dot.gov>\nCc: Delmer Billings < dbillings@dgac.org>\nSubject: Request for reconsideration of packaging tape width interpretations\nHello John,\nI'm following up on our conversation from last week. Interpretation 06-0129 was issued in 2006. Answer 2 says\nthat a wider version of an approved tape is considered a new design type and can't be used without additional\ntesting and certification. Interpretation 07-0029 was issued in 2007 based on a request for reconsideration of\nInterpretation 06-0129, which was denied.\nI am requesting reconsideration of these interpretations based on a common sense approach consistent with\ncurrent regulatory reform efforts. I don't see how there could be any logical doubt that a certain specification of\ntape would only be improved by using more of the same tape, in fact 06-0129 interprets extra layers of tape as\nbeing allowed. It seems that we should be referring to a minimum rather than an absolute, for which approach\nthere is abundant precedence in the HMR. I am interested to engage further on this matter in whatever way\nwould be helpful.\nI'm copying my colleague Del Billings who provided some assistance to me in this matter.\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nThanks for your willingness to receive this request.\nBen\nBen Barrett, PE, Consultant\nDG Advisor, LLC\nMobile & Text: +1 (816) 853-3508\nDangerous Goods Regulations Experts\nEmail: ben.barrett@dgadvisor.com\nbe inconsistent and uncertain; and there can be great difference of opinion as to the application, requirements and interpretation with respect to the\nDISCLAIMER: The matters upon which DG Advisor, LLC (Consultant) provides consulting services are highly technical; their regulation by public authority can\nmatters upon which Consultant provides services. Therefore, Consultant shall use its best judgment in these matters, recognizing these factors and\nrequirements. Consultant shall not be responsible for claimed loss on account of consulting services rendered by Consultant in good faith, and the recipient\nuncertainties that apply to same, and we do not warrant that compliance with any advice we provide will guarantee compliance with any legal or regulatory\nretains sole responsibility for compliance. The services of Consultant do not constitute legal advice. For legal advice, consult a lawyer.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n200 New Jersey Ave. S\nashington. DC 205s\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nAUG 2 0 2007\nDirector, Technical Services\nMr. Robert J. Ten Eyck\nRef. No. 07-0029\n1666 County Road 74\nTEN-E Packaging Services, Inc.\nNewport, MN 55055\nDear Mr. Ten Eyck:\nconstitutes a non-bulk packaging design change under the Hazardous Materials\nThis responds to your letter dated January 30, 2007, requesting an interpretation of what\nprevious interpretation issued by this office (06-0129) that states \"Changing the size (e.g.,\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask for reconsideration of a\nwidth) of the tape from that specified in the packaging test report and closure notification\nsame specification as that originally certified would not detract from the packaging's\nconstitutes a change in design.\" It is your opinion that a change to a wider tape of the\nperformance either under the UN performance tests or conditions normally incident to\ntransportation.\nWe agree it is possible that a wider tape applied to a package may create a more \"robust\"\npackage; however, it does not conclusively demonstrate how the package will perform\nwhen tested or transported. Additionally, a strict interpretation of the HMR does not\nprovide for regulatory relief under such a scenario. One solution you may consider is to\nminimum width 2 inches\" if you can conclusively ascertain that using wider tape will not\nannotate the test report and customer notification to read identical specification tape,\nimpair the performance of the package as the design was originally tested. This\nrecordkeeping solution would not constitute a different package design type provided a\npackage assembler. This analogy could also be applied retroactively to previously tested\nminimum width or a range of widths of identical specification tape was applied by the\npackage designs.\nBecause our previous response (06-129) offered a similar solution to this issue, we\nconsider our previously issued response to be valid and with merit.\nassistance.\nI trust this adequately responds to your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further\nSincerely,\nSusan Gorsky\nRegulations Officer\nte of Hazardous Materials Standards\n178.601\n070029\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nStevens\nTENDE\n$178.601\nSETTINE THE STONORAT\nTesting\n07-0029\nJanuary 30, 2007\nJohn A. Gale\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards PHH-10\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n• 400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, DC 20590\nRef. No.: 06-0129\nDear John:\nTEN-E Packaging Services is writing to request a reconsideration concerning the interpreted design\nchange when a shipper substitutes a wider tape of the same material specification to that which was\n\"wider\" variation of tape due to different box sealing equipment being employed at its various\noriginally certified under UN combination package testing. A shipper may have reason to substitute a\nproduction operations. A change to a wider tape of the same specification as that originally UN\ncertified would not, in TEN-E's opinion, detract from the packaging's performance either under the\nUN performance tests or conditions normally incident to transportation. Requiring a re-certification of\nthis tape substitution places an unnecessary burden on industry and it is for this reason that we ask\nthe agency to consider amending the above clarification.\nSincerely,\nHuber tientish?\nTEV-E Packaging Services, Inc.\nDirector, Technical Services\nTEN-E Packaging Services, Inc.\n1666 County Road 74\nPhone: 651-459-0671\nNewport, MN 55055\nFax: 651-459-1430\n: Web: www.ten-e.com\nEmail: info@ten-e.com\nUNITED STATES - MN\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nHazardous Materials Safety\nipeline and\nAdministration\nSEP 14 2006\nMr. Lonny Jaycox\nL. Smith Compan\nRef. No.: 06-0129\n311 South 39th Stres\nSt. Louis, Missouri 63110\nDear Mr. Jaycox:\nThis is in response to your May 30, 2006 email regarding the application of selective testing\n(esign 0), Spect is tested aud sai ted with a closure method speried in the no rection as\n71-180). Specifically\nLollitudi waily a on and spam with play scars age sting pair or one one\nsides of the carton, with tape adhered firmly in place.\" However, your company would like\nto use Tape XXXX, 72mm wide, which is different from the original notification. Your\nquestions are paraphrased and answered below:\nsome additional strips of the same tape, either in a similar manner slightly offset from the\nQ1: If a shipper complies with the closure method specified in the notification, then adds\npackaging design type\" under the HMR and require retesting?\nflap seams, or in a different manner, would that package be considered a \"different\nA1: The answer is no. A different packaging as defined in § 178.601(c)(4), is one that\nyour company adds additional tape to your package, it would not be considered a different\npackaging design type.\nQ2: If a shipper uses the 72mm wide version of the tested 48mm wide tape and applies it\nconsistent with the closure method specified in the notification, would that package be\nconsidered a \"different packaging design type\" under the HMR and require retesting?\n178.1\n178.819\n060129\n178.601\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nAż: The answer is yes. Changing the size of the tape from that specified in the packaging\nest report and closure notification constitutes a change in design. To eliminate tais\nroblem, two packagings should be tested with the different tapes and the packaging\nnotification amended to specify the actual widths or a range of widths.\nmethod specified in the notification, would that package be considered a \"different\nQ3: If a shipper applied both 48mm and 72mm wide tape consistent with the closure\npackaging design type\" under the HMR and require retesting?\nA3. See preceding answers.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact this office.\nSincerely,\nJohn A. Gale\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardoys Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nSteven\nJarman, Erin <PHMSA>\nReterbord\nSent\nFrom:\nljaycox@clsmith.com\nTo:\nTuesday, May 30, 2006 11:27 AM\n$178.1\nSubject:\nInformation Center Comments/Questions\nINFOCNTR <PHMSA>\n3178.814\nBelow is the result of your feedback form.\n(1jaycox@clsmith.com)\non Tuesday, May 30,\nsubmitted by Lonnie\nPackagings\n11:27:08.\n06-0129\nEmail:\nljaycox@clsmith.com\nName:\nLonnie Jaycox\nCategory: Specifications for Packagings (Sections 178.1 - 178.819) F\nOrganization: C L Smith Co.\nStreet: 1311 South 39th Street\nCity: St. Louis\nState: Missouri\nZip Code: 63110\nPhone: 314-771-1202\nFax: 314-773-2354\nComments: Scenario:\nclosure method specified in the notification as follows:\nA performance oriented packaging design type is tested and certified, ani with a carton\n'Tape XXXX, 48mm wide, poly PST, single strips top and bottom, centered botl\nsides of the carton, with tape adhered firmly in place.\"\nongitudinally along and spanning the flap seams, extending a minimum of 2.5\" onto the\ncceptable specification. This same tape is also available in 72mm widtł.\nape XXXX, is a specific stock number manufactured by a particular vendor to a consistent\nidentical tape just slit to the wider specification. (Tape is manufacturered in wide\nThis would be\n\"logs\" then slit to width.)\napplied it consistent with the notification, to satisfy application equipment needs, or\n02: If the shipper needed to use the 72mm wide version of the tested 48mm tape and\nfrom the desire for a more robust package (perhaps for parcel shipment); would that\npackage be \"different\" under the regulations and require re-testing?\nof the tested tape applied consistent with the application variations in fi; would that\n03: Assuming the answer to Q1 is yes: If the shipper needed to use the 72mm wide version\npackage be \"different\" under the regulations and require re-testing?\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\npeline an\nAdministration\nazardous Materials Safe\nSEP 14 2006\nMr. Lonny Jaycox\nRef. No.: 06-0129\n1311 South 394 Street\nC.L. Smith Company\nSt. Louis, Missouri 63110\nDear Mr. Jaycox:\nVariation 4 in § 178.601(g) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\nThis is in response to your May 30, 2006 email regarding the application of selective testing\n171-180). Specifically, your state that your company has a performance oriented packaging\nfollows: \"Tape XXXX, 48mm wide, poly PST, single strips top and bottom, centered both\nlesign type that is tested and certified with a closure method s\nlongitudinally along and spanning the flap seams, extending a minimum of 2.5\" onto the\nto use Tape XXXX, 72mm wide, which is different from the original notification. Your\nsides of the carton, with tape adhered firmly in place.\" However, your company would like\nquestions are paraphrased and answered below:\nQ1: If a shipper complies with the closure method specified in the notification, then adds\nsome additional strips of the same tape, either in a similar manner slightly offset from the\nflap seams, or in a different manner, would that package be considered a \"different\npackaging design type\" under the HMR and require retesting?\nA1: The answer is no. A different packaging as defined in § 178.601(c)(4), is one that\nQ2: If a shipper uses the 72mm wide version of the tested 48mm wide tape and applies it\nonsidered a \"different packaging design type\" under the HMR and require retesting\nonsistent with the closure method specified in the notification, would that package b\n178.1\n118.819\n060129\n178.601\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nSteven\nJarman, Erin <PHMSA>\nBeterfore\nFrom:\nSent:\nljaycox@clsmith.com\nTuesday, May 30, 2006 11:27 AM\n$178.1\nSubject:\nInformation Center Comments/Questions\nINFOCNTR <PHMSA>\n$178.819\nBelow is the result of your feedback\n(1jaycox@clsmith.com) on Tuesday, May\n30, 2006\nwas submitted by Lonnie Jaycox\nPackagings\n11:27:08.\n06 - 0129\nEmail:\n1jaycox@clsmith.com\nName:\nLonnie Jaycox\nCategory:\nSpecifications for Packagings (Sections 178.1 - 178.819 F\nOrganization:\nCL Smith Co.\nStreet: 1311 South 39th Street\nCity: St. Louis\nState: Missouri\nZip Code: 63110\nPhone: 314-771-1202\nFax: 314-773-2354\nComments: Scenario:\nclosure method specified in the notification as follows:\nA performance oriented packaging design type is tested and certified, ani with a carton\n\"Tape XXXX, 48mm wide, poly PST, single strips top and bottom, centered hoth\nides of the carton, with tape adhered firmly in place.\nongitudinally along and spanning the flap seams, extending a minimum of 2.5\" onto the\nTape XXXX, is a specific stock number manufactured by a particular vendor to a consistent,\nacceptable specification. This same tape is also available in 72mm widtł..\n\"logs\" then slit to width.)\nidentical tape just slit to the wider specification. (Tape is manufacturered in wide\nadded some additional strips of the same tape,\nIf a shipper applied the carton closure above in the specified manner first; then\nlift points; would that package be \"different\" under the regulations and require re-\napplied it consistent with the notification, to satisfy application equipment needs, or\nIf the shipper needed to use the 72mm wide version of the tested 48mm tape and\npackage be \"different\" under the regulations and require re-testing?\nfrom the desire for a more robust package (perhaps for parcel shipment); would that\nQ3: Assuming the answer to Q1 is yes: If the shipper needed to use the 72mm wide version\npackage be \"different\" under the regulations and require re-testing?\nof the tested tape applied consistent with the application variations in fi; would that","truncated":false,"body_characters":17694}