{"operation":"document","citation":"10-0033","title":"Industrial Packaging Alliance of North America — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-03-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"10-0033 response to Industrial Packaging Alliance of North America concerning 178.503.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0033.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0033.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0033","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2010/100033.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nMAn 1 2 2010\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. John McQuaid\nIndustrial Packaging Alliance ofNorth America\nP.O. Box 100907\nArlington, VA 22210\nRef. No.: 10-0033\nDear Mr. McQuaid:\nThis is in response to your January 21, 2010 letter regarding display ofpackage markings in\naccordance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nSpecifically, you ask whether a label containing the information required by § 178.503(c) meets\nthe permanency requirements of § 178.3.\nA reusable metal drum liable to undergo a reconditioning process must bear the marks identified\nin § 178.503(a)(1) through (a)(6) and (a)(9)(i) in a permanent form that is able to withstand the\nreconditioning process. Although it may be possible to permanently apply these marks in some\nother fashion (e.g. stamping or etching), embossing is the most common method of permanently\nmarking steel drums. A label generally would not insure permanency.\nFor a new metal drum with a capacity greater than 100 L, the permanent marks described in\n§ 178.503(a)(1) through (a)(6) and (a)(9)(i), must appear on the bottom. Other required marks\nneed not be permanent and may appear as part of a complete marking on the side or top of the\ndrum. Again, a label generally would not insure permanency. If the capacity of the drum is less\nthan or equal to 100 L the markings may be anywhere on the drum.\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact\nthis office.\nCharles E. Betts\nChief, Standards Development\nlice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDrakeford, Carol\nFrom: Mazzullo, Ed (PHMSA) flJat'tlnCf'S () fa el.tl (J/~\nSent: Tuesday, February 16, 20107:19 AM J U V\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) I () ='\" ()0\nSubject: FW: Inquiry on Markings of Packagings Pursuant to Section 178.3\nImportance: High\nPlease assign for response.\nEd\nFrom: John McQuaid [mailto:mcquaid@industrialpackaging.org]\nSent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:03 PM\nTo: Mazzullo, Ed (PHMSA)\nSubject: Inquiry on Markings of Packagings Pursuant to Section 178.3\nImportance: High\nEd,\nI hope this note finds you well!!\nI am writing on behalf of a filler that utilizes 55-gallon steel drums manufactured in accordance\nwith POP requirements to facilitate the export of lubricants through three Houston-area ports.\nAn issue has arisen at one of the three ports used to export the product whereby Coast Guard\npersonnel have recently begun to reject drums for loading in ISO shipping containers for export\nbecause the drums are marked with labels (described to me as 1\" x 3\" in dimension) containing the\ninformation required by § 178.503 to conform to the UN standard.\nAccording to my contact who fills these drums, under contract, for export and manages the supply\nchain process, his firm purportedly has been shipping this product through three Houston ports for\nalmost a decade with these labels containing the required marking information. To be clear, these\nare UN-rated drums for export.\nThe Coast Guard, in recently rejecting the packagings at one Houston port of debarkation, informed\nthe party filling and handhng the packagings for export that they are in violation of 49 CFR 178.3 in\nthat the markings on the drum are not stamped, embossed, burned, printed or otherwise marked\non the packaging to provide adequate accessibility, permanency, contracts, and legibility so as to be\nreadily apparent and understood.\nMy question is: Does the 1\" x 3\" label containing the required information afftxed to the drum\nsatisfy the requirements of § 178.3? I am concerned as to whether, at a minimum, the label as\ndescribed meets the \"permanency\" requirements of § 178.3.\nAny assistance you and your staff can provide in clarifying this issue would be appreciated. As I\nmentioned, these are products for export. The apparent lack of consistency by Coast Guard\npersonnel in relation to the acceptability of a labeling practice that, reportedly, has been standard\npractice by the steel drum manufacturers providing packagings to this f11ler for use in exporting\nproduct at the Houston ports for a decade requires clarification as soon as possible.\nThank you!\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nJohn A. McQuaid\nmcquaicl(£idndustrialpackaging.org\nIndustrial Packaging Alliance of North America\nNEW CONTACT INFORMATION:\nIPANA/SSCI\nP.O. BOX 100907\nARLINGTON, VA 22210\nPHONE: 571.527.0779\nFAX: 571.527.0781\nCELL: 703.629.6239 (unchanged)\nHELP PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT; PRINT THIS EMAIL ONLY IF NECESSARY.\nCONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT\nThis electronic message transmission contains information from IPANA and is confidential or privileged. this information is intended only for the\nperson or persons named above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any other action based on the\ncontents of this information is strictly prohibited.\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":4968}