{"operation":"document","citation":"18-0112","title":"Schuetz Container Systems — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2019-07-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"18-0112 response to Schuetz Container Systems concerning 178.703.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0112.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0112.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0112","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/71721/180112.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nBrian Minnich\nDirector Tech Service and Quality\nSchuetz Container Systems\n200 North Aspen Hill Road\nNorth Branch, NJ 08876\nReference No. 18-0112\nDear Mr. Minnich:\nThis letter is in response to your August 2, 2018, email and subsequent phone conversation with\na member of my staff requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49\nCFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the requirements for marking an Intermediate Bulk Container\n(IBC). Specifically, you ask whether the IBC may be marked with a stacking test load at a lesser\nlevel than the successful test result or a capacity lower than the rated capacity the IBC was\ndesigned to. For example, you present a scenario where a composite IBC successfully completed\nthe test at 3855 kg but is marked 3700 kg, and the rated capacity of the packaging is 2031 L but\nis marked 2020 L. You ask if this conforms to the marking requirements in§ 178.703.\nThe answer is no. An IBC may not be marked at a lower weight than the stacking test load at\nwhich it was successfully tested. In accordance with§ 178.703(a)(l)(vii), IBCs must be marked\nwith \"the stacking test load in kilograms (kg).\" The stacking test load marking is associated with\nthe additional marking requirements for the IBC stack symbol found in § 178. 703(b )(7).\nSpecifically, in § 178. 703(b )(7)(iv), the maximum permitted stacking load in kilograms must be\ndisplayed. The mass marked above the symbol must not exceed the load imposed during the\ndesign test, as indicated in§ 178.703(a)(l)(vii), divided by 1.8. Further, an IBC must be marked\nwith the rated capacity it was designed to in liters of water at 20 °C (68 °F), as prescribed in\n§ 178.703(b)(l)(i).\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDodd, Alice (OST)\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nSubject:\nAttachments:\nINFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nThursday, August 02, 2018 4:17 PM\nHazmat Interps\nFW: Letter of Interpretation\nIBC UN Marking Letter of Interpretation Request 8-2-2018.docx\nHi Ikea,\nAttached is a request for a letter of interpretation. I spoke with Austin regarding his request.\nThank you,\nJodi\nFrom: Austin Ip [mailto:Austin.lp@schuetz.net]\nSent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 9:35 AM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nSubject: Letter of Interpretation\nHi,\nI am requesting a letter of interpretation in regards to composite IBCs. See attachment.\nThanks.\nAustin Ip\nTechnical Service Engineer\nSchuetz Container Systems\n200 Aspen Hill Road\nNorth Branch, NJ 08876-5950\nPhone: 908-526-6161 ext.1126\nEmail: austin.ip@schuetz.net\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nSCHUTZ\nSchuetz Container Systems Inc.\n200 Aspen Hill Road\nNorth Branch, NJ 08876\nAugust 2, 2018\nTo: Office of the Chief Counsel\nPHMSA US DOT\nPHC-10\n1200 New Jersey Ave, Southeast building\nWashington, DC 20590 - 0001\nFrom Austin Ip\nSchuetz Container Systems\n200 Aspen Hill Road\nNorth Branch, NJ 08876\nSubject: Request for Letter of Interpretation Regarding UN Marking of Composite IBCs.\nIn accordance with 49 CFR 105.20, I am requesting a letter of interpretation in regards to the UN marking of composite IBCs. Our\ncompany currently produces composite IBCs with designation 31 HA 1. As such, the UN marking includes stacking weight, gross\nfilling weight (including package), and tare weight. If the corresponding UN test report has the samples tested at a more stringent\nlevel, a composite IBC marked at or below the testing level should be considered acceptable. For example, an IBC was tested to\nthe following:\n31HA1 / Y / ** / USA I +AA6011 I 3855 / 203 1 / 57kg / l00kPa\nIf the package was marked as:\n31 HA 1 I Y I ** I USA I +AA6011 I 3700 I 2020 I 58kg / I00kPa\nthis would be considered acceptable.\nThank you for the assistance.\nSincerely,\nAustin Ip\nTechnical Service\nPhone: 908-526-6161 ext. 1126\nEmail: austin.ip@schuetz.net","truncated":false,"body_characters":3965}