Interpretation Response #13-0152 ([Remcon Plasticcs Incorporated] [Mr. Peter J. Connors])

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

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 10/17/2013

Company Name: Remcon Plasticcs Incorporated

Individual Name: Mr. Peter J. Connors

Location State: PA Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

October 17, 2013

Mr. Peter J. Connors
Remcon Plastics Incorporated
208 Chestnut Street
Reading, PA 19602-1809

Ref. No. 13-0152

Dear Mr. Connors:

This responds to your July 23, 2013 letter and subsequent August 7, 2013 email correspondence regarding the meaning of “different IBC design type” in § 178.801(c)(7) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).  A different design type for an IBC is defined as one that “differs from a previously qualified IBC design type in structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness, or manner of construction,” but does not include, among other things, “a packaging which differs in service equipment.”  You indicate that you have designed an IBC with a gasket made of Viton®, which has successfully passed a design qualification test; however, since Viton® is not compatible with some materials, you have designed an identical IBC to the one that passed the design qualification test, except that the body closure gasket is made with alternative materials.  You indicate that the body closure gasket is used to fill and close the IBC.  Your questions are paraphrased and answered below.

Q1.  Can the body closure gasket for the IBC scenario described above be considered “service equipment” as defined in the HMR?  

A1.  Based on the scenario described above the answer is no.  In this situation the body closure gasket would be considered to be part of the body of the IBC, not the IBC’s service equipment.  “Body” is defined in § 178.700(c)(1) as the receptacle proper (including openings and their closures, but not including service equipment) that has a volumetric capacity of not more than 3 cubic meters (3,000 L, 793 gallons, or 106 cubic feet).  As this body closure gasket would perform the primary function of a closure and be essential to retain the lading it would meet the definition of “Body.”

Q2.  If the material of construction of the body closure gasket described above is changed on the IBC, is the IBC considered a different design type requiring a new design qualification test?  

A2.  Based on the scenario described above the answer is yes.  It is the opinion of this office that a change in the material of construction of the body closure gasket used as a

closure and for retention of the lading for an IBC constitutes a change in the body.  For that reason, it would be considered a different design type and would require a new design qualification test.  

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions, please contact this office.

Sincerely,

Robert Benedict
Chief, Standards Development Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division

178.801(c)(7)

Regulation Sections