{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0137","title":"Southcorp Packaging USA, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-07-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"99-0137 response to Southcorp Packaging USA, Inc. concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0137.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0137.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0137","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990137.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJ.S. Departmen\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nof Transportatior\nWashington, D.C\n20590\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nJUL 13 2000\nAdministration\nMr. Stephen E. Danek\nRef. No. 99-0137\nSouthcorp Packaging USA, Inc.\n6047 Guion Road\nIndianapolis, IN 46254\nDear Mr. Danek:\nThis is in response to your letter requesting clarification of selective testing under Variation 5, with\nregard to testing different closures or gaskets on similar packages, under the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). I apologize for the delay in responding and hope it has\nnot caused any inconvenience. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1. Are qualifying tests required for non-removable head UN 1H1 or UN 3H1, 5 or 6 gallon\ncapacity plastic packagings, with different threaded non-vented or vented closures? Can\ndifferent closure/gasket combinations with a design qualification covering a 5-gallon removable\nhead drum (UN 1H2) with 70mm threaded closures and gaskets, for example, \"W and Y\", \"X\nand Z\", \"X and Y\", or \"W and Z\", respectively, be used without further testing?\nAl.\nWhen a closure device has been qualified by means of the tests referenced in Variation 5,\n§ 178.601(g)(5), that closure device may be used on any packaging of the same type with at\nleast the same integrity. If four different closure devices have been qualified through the\nspecified \"qualifying tests,\" any one of those closure devices or any combination of those\nclosure devices may be used. For single packagings ranging in size from 5 to 6 gallons\ncapacity, and provided the only difference between the packagings is the size or capacity, tests\nrun on the packagings with the greatest size or capacity will qualify all packagings with a lesser\nsize or capacity.\nQ2.\nWhat does the phrase \"provided an equivalent level of performance is maintained\",\n§ 178.601(g)(5), mean?\nA2.\nThe phrase \"provided an equivalent level of performance is maintained\" means that the\npackaging must be equally effective and the testing method used must be equivalent to that of\nthe tested design type.\nQ3.\nAre periodic retests required for single packagings (UN 1H1 or UN 3H1) installed with\ndifferent closure devices (e.g., 70mm threaded vented or non-vented closure devices), or do\nperiodic retests done, for example, on crimp-on-fittings, cover only crimp-on fittings that fit the\nsame neck finish that have previously passed the qualifying tests under Variation \"5\"?\n178.60)\n990137\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA3.\nSingle packagings (e.g., UN 1H1 or UN 3H1) that differ from a tested design type only to the\nextent that the closure device or gasketing differs from that used in the originally tested design\ntype, may be used without further testing, provided an equivalent level of performance is\nmaintained, subject to the conditions prescribed under Variation \"5\".\nQ4. Are closures with only minor differences considered a design change; and when one of these\nclosures is certified, are the others certified as well? For example, the Rieke® FS-70 has a 3/4\"\ndiameter threaded recess, the bottom of which can be bored out by the end user for insertion of-\na faucet; the FS-80 has a flat top surface; and the FS-80T is the same as the FS-80 except that\nit has a tamper-evident ring with additional plastic (which does not affect the performance of the\npackage) at the base of the neck opening to catch the ring and break it off when the container is\ninitially opened.\nA4. Changes in closures on single packagings are permitted without further design testing under the\nconditions prescribed in §178.601(g)(5). If the tests required in $178.601(g) (5) have been\nsuccessfully completed, the new closure system would not be considered a design change.\nQ5.\nIf multiple closures and/or gaskets, having passed the qualifying tests under Variation 5, are\ncertified under a single periodic retest, must the periodic retest report indicate all of the closures\nand/or gasket combinations that are covered? Can an archived report showing evidence of\npreviously passed qualifying tests along with a current periodic retest report that only reports\nthe single closure and gasket combination used for the testing be used to prove certification of\nmultiple closures and/or gaskets?\nAS.\nA test report must be completed for each packaging design qualification test and each periodic\nretest. Section 178.601(1) sets forth the information that must be included in each test report.\nA person applying a selective testing variation is not required to make a note of it in the\ndocumentation of a tested design type or a periodic retest report.\nI hope this satisfies you inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.\nSincerely,\nWe Bilfi\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Regulations Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n03/23/00\n17:14 FAX\n40002\nSOUTHC RP PACKAGING USA, INC.\nAntoine, iana 10851\nFacsimile 317-587-094\nelephone 317-987-0902\nengrum\nMay 25, 1999\n$178.401\nMr. Edward Mazzulio\nDear Mr. Mazzullo\nesting requirements for using different closures or gaskets on similar packages. In the questions belos\nlease clarify Title 49 CFR $178.601(g)(5), known as Selective Testing Variation 5, with regard to th\nmay be worded with this practice in mind.)\n1. Are qualifying tests using the specific packaging design in question required in order to use a\nreplacement closure or gasket? Is it sufficient to simply have done resting that demonstrates that the\nreplacement closure or gasket performs as well as the original closure or gasket!\nA. There is a design qualification covering a specific 6-gallon plastic jerrican (3H1) with a 70mm\nFor instance:\nB. There is a design qualification covering the same 6-gallon plastic jerrican (3H1) with a similar\nthreaded non-vented closure.\nC. There is a design qualification covering a specific 5-gallon round plastic non-removable head\n70mm threaded closure that is vented.\ndrum (1F1) with the 70mm threaded non-vonted closure.\nIs the same 5-gallon round plastic non-removable head drum (1H1) with the 70mm threaded vented\nclosure covered without further testing?\n2.\nIf the 5-gallon plastic round non-removable head drum (IHI) with the 70mm threaded vented closure\nnon-removable head drum (ITIl) with the 70mm threaded non-vented closure is periodically retested?\nbove requires qualifying tests, does it also require periodic rerests even if the 5-gallon plastic round\nDoes the phrase \"provided an equivalent level of performance is maintained\" in Title 49 CFF\n$178.601(g)(5) require that periodic retests be performed\n3. If periodic retests are required, are they required for just the 6-gallon plastic jerrican (3H1) with the\n(IHI) with the 70mm threaded vented closure?\nnampas\nBennett\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n03/23/00 17:14 FAX\n49003\nCan a closure/gasket combination on a package be certified indirectly based on logical interpretation of\nthe regulation and existing design qualifications?\nFirst scenario:\nL There is a design qualification covering a 5-gallon round plastic removable head drum (1H2) with\nB. There is a design qualification covering the same 5-gallon round plastic removable head drum\n70mm threaded closure W and cover gasket of material Y\n(1H2) with 70mm threaded closure X and cover gasket of material Z.\nIs the same 5-gallon round plastic removable head drum (11H2) with 70mm threaded closure X with\ncover gasket of material Y covered without further testing?\nSecond scenario:\n70mm threaded closure W and cover gasket of material Y.\nThere is a design qualification covering a 5-gallon round plastic removable head drum (1H2) with\n3. There is a design qualification covering the same 5-gallon round plastic removable head drum\n. There is a design qualification covering the same 5-gallon round plastic removable head drur\n(TH2) with 70mm threaded closure X and cover gasket of material Z.\n[H2) with 70mm threaded closure W and cover gasket of material 2\nIs the same 5-gallon round plastic removable head drum (1H2) with 70mm threaded closure X with\ncover gasket of material Y covered without further testing?\n5. When it comes to certification, we consider closures with only minor cosmetic differences to be\nvirtually identical.\nA For instance, we consider the Rieke® FS-70 and the Rieke® FS-80 70mm threaded closures to be\nvirtually identical. The Rieke® FS-80 has a flat top surface. The Rieke® FS-70 has a %\"\ndiameter threaded recess, the bottom of which can be bored out by the end user for insertion of a\ndifference in the performance and integrity of these two closures. When one of these closure i\naucet. Otherwise, these closures are identical. Our history of testing has shown absolutely no\ncertified, we consider the other one certified also. Is this thinking correct?\nB.\nIn addition, the Rieked FS-SOT is the same as the Rieke FS-80 except that it has a tamper-\nof the neck opening to catch the ring and break it off when the container is initially opened. We\nevident ring. In order to work, the tamper-evident ring requires some additional plastic at the base\nconsider the two closures to be virtually identical. Also, the additional plastic at the base of the\nneck is considered minor and incidental to the integrity of the package and, therefore, not a change\nin design of the container. Is this thinking correct!\n6. We currently apply Selective Testing Variation 5 only to closures that require the same neck finish on\na container. For instance, a unique single packaging design has multiple design qualifications, each\nwith a different closure. When a periodic retest is done, the certification covers thar design with those\nclosures that require the same neck finish. For instance, a periodic retest done using a crimo-on fitting\nwould cover only crimp-on fittings that fit on the same neck finish and have been previously passed\nthe qualifying tests. Is this thinking correct?\n7. If, by applying Selective Testing Variation 5, multiple closures and/or gaskets are certified under a\nsingle periodic retest, is it required that the periodic retest report indicate all of the closures and/or\ngasket combinations that are covered? Can an archived report showing evidence of previously passed\nqualifying tests along with a current periodic retest report that only reports the single closure and\ngasket combination used for the testing be used to prove certification of multiple closures and/o\ngaskets? If both are acceptable, which is the preferred method\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nThank you for your assistance in this matter.\nSincerely,\nsripter 7. Sland\nStephen E. Danek\n6047 Guion Road\nSouthcorp Packaging USA, Inc.\nIndianapolis, IN 46254","truncated":false,"body_characters":10587}