USA Banner

Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation

Interpretation Response #15-0140

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

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date:

Company Name: Inmark Packaging

Individual Name: Mr. Jay Johnson

Location State: GA Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

November 14, 2017
Mr. Jay Johnson, DGSA
Regulatory Compliance Manager
Inmark Packaging
675 Hartman Road
Suite 100
Austell, GA 30168
Reference No. 15-0140
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This letter is in response to your June 18, 2015 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the term “positive means of closure.”  Specifically, you describe two scenarios and ask if the additional or secondary “positive means” of closure requirements are met as prescribed in §§ 173.4a(e)(2) and 173.27(d).  Your scenarios are paraphrased and responded to as follows:
Scenario 1:  For a cap that uses ratchet-type back-off protection to keep the closure permanently attached to the container, are the additional or secondary “positive means” of closure requirements prescribed in §§ 173.4a(e)(2) and 173.27(d) met? 
Scenario 2:  Your letter cites a previous letter of clarification we issued on this topic (Reference No. 11-0165) and challenges its conclusion that the break-away ring design depicted did not provide a secondary positive means of closure as required by
§§ 173.4a(e)(2) and 173.27(d).   
The acceptable methods of additional or secondary positive means of closure provided within the HMR are examples, and are not an exhaustive list.  We agree that the ratchet-type back-off protection described in your letter satisfies the positive means of closure requirements of the HMR.  Upon further review, we agree that the break-away ring closure securement depicted in the interpretation issued by this Office on October 18, 2011 (Ref. No. 11-0165) satisfies the additional or secondary positive means of closure requirements of the HMR.  We are thereby rescinding and replacing Interpretation 11-0165 issued on this topic and will notify its recipient as quickly as possible.
I hope this information is helpful.  Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division
173.4a(e)(2), 173.27(d)

Regulation Sections

Section Subject
173.27 General requirements for transportation by aircraft
173.4 Small quantities for highway and rail