Interpretation Response #06-0129 ([C.L. Smith Company] [Mr. Lonny Jaycox ])

Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 09/14/2006

Company Name: C.L. Smith Company

Individual Name: Mr. Lonny Jaycox 

Location State: MO Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

Sep 14, 2006

Mr. Lonny Jaycox                 Reference No. 06-0129
C.L. Smith Company
1311 South 39 Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63110

Dear Mr. Jaycox:

This is in response to your May 30, 2006 email regarding the application of selective testing Variation 4 in § 178.60 1(g) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, your state that your company has a performance oriented packaging design type that is tested and certified with a closure method specified in the notification as follows: “Tape XXXX, 48mm wide, poly PST, single strips top and bottom, centered both longitudinally along and spanning the flap seams, extending a minimum of 2.5” onto the sides of the carton, with tape adhered firmly in place.” However, your company would like to use Tape XXXX, 72mm wide, which is different from the original notification. Your questions are paraphrased and answered below:

Q1: If a shipper complies with the closure method specified in the notification, then adds some additional strips of the same tape, either in a similar manner slightly offset from the flap seams, or in a different manner, would that package be considered a “different packaging design type” under the HMR and require retesting?

Al: The answer is no. A different packaging as defined in § l78.60l(c)(4), is one that differs (i.e., is not identical) from a previously produced packaging in structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness, or manner of construction. The packaging manufacturer may specify the type and dimensions of the tape needed to satisfy the performance requirements. The manufacturer or other person certifying comp1ian with the specifications must notify, in writing, each person to whom the package is transferred of such requirements (178.2(c)). If the packaging is closed as specified by the manufacturer, the application of additional tape would not be considered a different design. Therefore, if your company adds additional tape to your package, it would not be considered a different packaging design type.

Q2: If a shipper uses the 72mm wide version of the tested 48mm wide tape and applies it consistent with the closure method specified in the notification, would that package be considered a “different packaging design type” under the HMR and require retesting?

A2: The answer is yes. Changing the size of the tape from that specified in the packaging test report and closure notification constitutes a change in design. To eliminate this problem, two packagings should be tested with the different tapes and the packaging notification amended to specify the actual widths or a range of widths.
Q3: If a shipper applied both 48mm and 72mm wide tape consistent with the closure method specified in the notification, would that package be considered a “different packaging design type” under the HMR and require retesting?

A3. See preceding answers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.

Sincerely,

John A.  Gale
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

178.1, 178.819, 178.601

Regulation Sections