Interpretation Response #00-0076 ([Berry Packaging of SC, Inc.] [Mr. Ron Stanley])
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name: Berry Packaging of SC, Inc.
Individual Name: Mr. Ron Stanley
Location State: SC Country: US
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
October 24, 2000
Mr. Ron Stanley Reference No: 00-0076
Berry Packaging of SC, Inc.
5770 North Blackstock Road
Spartanburg, SC 29303
Dear Mr. Stanley:
This is in response to your letter of February 29, 2000, requesting clarification of the phrase Avirtually identical@ as it pertains to UN standard packagings prescribed in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You describe a scenario where your customer has a company construct a fiberboard box and test the design at its testing laboratory. This customer would now like your company to construct a fiberboard box that meets the standards for the box that was already tested and certified by your competitor's testing laboratory. The only characteristics of the fiberboard that are described in the test report are the Mullen burst strength, the flute, the size and the style. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:
Q1. May the fiberboard box manufactured by your company be considered Avirtually identical@ to the fiberboard box used in the tested packaging if it meets all the characteristics described in the test report?
The answer is no. The test report you describe does not provide enough information on the fiberboard box to make the determination that your fiberboard box would be virtually identical. To be identical it must be established that the two boxes are the same with respect to structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness and manner of construction. Unless you have sufficient information to duplicate the box as produced and tested, you would be producing a different packaging that must be design tested. Mullen burst strength, type of flute, size and style are not sufficiently descriptive to make this determination. In addition, in order to substitute fiberboard, the test documentation from the testing laboratory may not identify the fiberboard in terms of a specific manufacturer, and the agreement between the manufacturer, as identified through the certification marking, and the testing laboratory may not preclude substitution of components without recertification.
Q2. We have several linerboard suppliers. If we have a packaging tested and certified using linerboard made by one supplier, can we use another supplier's linerboard as long as we can verify that the new supplier's linerboard has the same characteristics as the original linerboard? By matching the characteristics listed in the Certification Testing Document, me we not virtually identical?
Linerboard from various manufacturers may be used if the linerboard is not changed, i.e., there is no change in structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness and manner of construction. Again, Mullen burst strength, type of flute, size and style are not sufficiently descriptive to make this determination.
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Mazzullo
Director, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards
178.601
Regulation Sections
Section | Subject |
---|---|
178.601 | General requirements |