{"operation":"document","citation":"10-0186","title":"URS Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-10-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"10-0186 response to URS Corporation concerning 171.8, 173.241, 173.35.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0186.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0186.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0186","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2010/100186.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nocr 29 2010\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMs. Erin N. Jannan\nDRS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nReference No.: 10-0186\nDear Ms. Jannan:\nThis responds to your September 1, 2010 letter regarding packaging requirements for diesel fuel\nunder the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Your questions are\nparaphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1. Is it possible for a packaging to be tested and dual-marked as both an Intermediate Bulk\nContainer (IBC) and a portable tank?\nAI. The answer is no. An IBC is defined by the HMR as a rigid or flexible portable packaging,\nother than a cylinder or specification portable tank, that is designed for mechanical handling\n(see § 171.8).\nQ2. If an !BC has not been tested according to the retest requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part\n178, Subpart 0, must the UN marking be removed or obliterated to continue to be used?\n°\nA2. The requirements applicable to IBC retesting are set forth in 49 CFR Part 178, Subpart\nand\nreference specifically Part 180, Subpart D. As provided by § 173.35, when an IBC is\nidentified as an UN specification container by the specification plate, it must meet the\nspecification and be retested in accordance with Part 180, Subpart D regardless ofwhether\nthe materi~l is hazardous or not. Ifan IBC has not been retested, one must obliterate, cover,\nor make illegible the specification identification on the specification plate in order for the\n!BC to continue to be used as a non-specification container without being retested.\nQ3. By removing or obliterating the UN Marking of the IBC, it is our understanding based on\nDOT interpretation Letter Ref No. 08-0286 that this packaging could be considered a nonspecification\nbulk packaging. Is that correct?\nA3. The answer is yes. The previously issued interpretation (Ref. No. 08-0286) you cite in your\ninquiry remains valid. Because the specification markings are destroyed, removed, or\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\ncovered, the packaging no longer meets the standards of an IBC in accordance with the\nHMR. The packaging in your scenario is a non-specification bulk packaging.\nQ4. If the answer to Q3 is yes, could this non-specification bulk packaging satisfy the' packaging\nrequirements found in § 173.241, which permits the use ofnon-specification portable tanks\nfor the transportation of high flashpoint diesel fuel?\nA4. The answer is yes. If the specification markings are destroyed, removed, or covered, the\npackaging no longer meets the standards of a specification packaging in accordance with the\nHMR. Therefore, the packaging is a non-specification bulk packaging and can be considered\na non-specification portable tank. In accordance with § 172.102 special provision B 1, a\nmaterial with a flash point at or above 38° C (100° F) and below 93° C (200° F) can use the\nbulk packaging requirements in § 173.241, which allow for the use of non-specification\nportable tanks.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\n~rff~~~\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n-eened1ct\n~ 172. /0 (\n9,73·2L1{\n\"\"Bu.1 K PCtLK~ f~\nlO-OI8~\nSeptember 1, 2010\nMr. Charles E. Betts\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nU.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-lO)\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Betts:\nI am writing to you with regards to the packaging requirements for diesel fuel under 49 CFR §172.1 02,\nSpecial Provision B I. Specifically, Special Provision B 1 states the fo\\1owing:\n\"Ifthe material has a flash point at or above 38° C (100° F) and below 93° C (200° F), then the bulk\npackaging requirements of §173.241 ofthis subcbapter are applicable.\"\nIn addition to other types of packaging, 49 CFR §173 .241 permits the use of non-DOT specification\nportable tanks suitable for the transport of liquids. It also permits the use of various intermediate bulk\ncontainer (JBC) types.\nPer the definition for \"intermediate bulk container\" found in 49 CFR §172.1 0 1, the term specifically\nexcludes portable tanks, however the definition of \"portable tank\" in that same section seems to describe\ntypical JBCs that are used in industry, since many of them are \"equipped with skids, mountings, or\naccessories to facilitate handling ofthe tank by mechanical means.\"\nMy questions are as follows:\nI) Is it possible for a packaging to be tested and dual marked as both an IBC and a portable tank?\n2) Ifan JBC has not been tested according to the retest requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 178, Subpart\n0, must the UN marking be removed or obliterated to continue being used?\n3) By removing or obliterating the UN marking of the JBC, it is our understanding based on DOT\nInterpretation Letter Ref. # 08-0286 that this packaging would then be considered a non-specification\nbulk packaging. Is that correct?\n4) If the answer to Question 3 is YES, could this non-specification bulk packaging satisfy the packaging\nrequirements found in § 173 .241 which permits the use of non-specification portable tanks for the\ntransportation of high flash point diesel fuel?\nThank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your response.\nSincerely,\nErin N. Jarman\nEnvironmental Scientist\nURS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nTel: 919-461-1478\nErin_Jarman@urscorp.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":5527}