# Intermediate Bulk Containers for Hazardous Materials; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** Not available
- **title:** Intermediate Bulk Containers for Hazardous Materials; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Office of the Federal Register
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 1994-07-26
- **effective on:** 1994-09-30
- **summary:** RSPA is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations to include requirements for the construction, maintenance and use of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) for the transportation of hazardous materials. The amendments are based on standards contained in the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Recommendations) and the commodity assignments set forth in the International Maritime Organization's (IMO's) International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code. This final rule establishes safety standards for IBCs; allows for flexibility and technological innovation in the development of IBC design types; eliminates the need for most DOT exemptions applying to polyethylene, rigid, and flexible IBCs; enhances safety; and harmonizes domestic provisions for IBCs with international provisions.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-94-16673.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-94-16673.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-94-16673
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1994/07/26/94-16673/intermediate-bulk-containers-for-hazardous-materials-final-rule-department-of-transportation
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 59 Issue 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 1994) [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 94-16673] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: July 26, 1994] _______________________________________________________________________ Part II Department of Transportation _______________________________________________________________________ Research and Special Programs Administration _______________________________________________________________________ 49 CFR Part 171, et al. Intermediate Bulk Containers for Hazardous Materials; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 178, and 180 [Docket No. HM-181E; Amdt. Nos. 171-126, 172-136, 173-238, 178-103, 180-5] RIN 2137-AC23 Intermediate Bulk Containers for Hazardous Materials AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RSPA is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations to include requirements for the construction, maintenance and use of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) for the transportation of hazardous materials. The amendments are based on standards contained in the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Recommendations) and the commodity assignments set forth in the International Maritime Organization's (IMO's) International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code. This final rule establishes safety standards for IBCs; allows for flexibility and technological innovation in the development of IBC design types; eliminates the need for most DOT exemptions applying to polyethylene, rigid, and flexible IBCs; enhances safety; and harmonizes domestic provisions for IBCs with international provisions. DATES: Effective: September 30, 1994. Compliance date: Compliance with the regulations, as amended herein, is authorized as of August 12, 1994. Incorporation by reference: The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these amendments has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 30, 1994. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Potter, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 366-4488, or William Gramer, Office of Hazardous Materials Technology, (202) 366-4545, RSPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On August 14, 1992, RSPA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (Docket No. HM-181E; Notice 92-7; 57 FR 36694) proposing to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) by incorporating requirements for the construction, maintenance and use of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) for the transport of hazardous materials. Requirements in this final rule continue the process initiated under Docket No. HM-181 (55 FR 52402- 52720, Dec. 21, 1990; 56 FR 66124-66287, Dec. 20, 1991) of adopting performance-oriented packaging standards based, in part, on UN Recommendations. This final rule also responds to a petition for rulemaking (P-1103) from the Rigid Intermediate Bulk Container Association (RIBCA) requesting adoption of IBC requirements based on the UN Recommendations. The construction and design testing requirements for IBCs contained in this final rule are based, in large part, on standards specified in Chapter 16 of the UN Recommendations. These standards include definitions, specifications, performance test requirements, inspection, and periodic testing of metal, rigid plastic, composite, fiberboard, wooden, and flexible IBCs. A major benefit of this final rule is the elimination of the need for a number of exemptions. RSPA believes that regulating the manufacture and use of IBCs under the HMR will enhance technological innovation, particularly in the development of polyethylene and composite IBCs. The elimination of the need for IBC exemptions also frees manufacturers from the cost and administrative burdens associated with obtaining, using and renewing exemptions. Two commenters urged RSPA to grandfather existing plastic and composite IBCs currently under exemptions that withstand performance test requirements proposed in the NPRM. RSPA recognizes the need for a policy which eliminates unnecessary exemptions but permits the manufacture and use of IBCs that already meet UN standards or offer an equivalent level of safety. Therefore, in this final rule, RSPA is establishing four options to address IBC packagings currently manufactured and used under terms of an exemption: (1) RSPA will consider renewing the terms of a DOT exemption IBC in accordance with the provisions in subpart B of part 107 until October 1, 1996. With a two-year exemption term, IBCs could be used until October 1, 1998. (2) Exemption IBC packagings meeting new construction and design type test standards adopted in subparts N and O of part 178 in this final rule may be remarked and certified as UN standard packagings. In such cases, exemptions would no longer be needed. (3) Under the approval of equivalent packagings provided in Sec. 178.801(i), an exemption intermediate bulk container which differs from the standards in subpart N of this part, or which is tested using methods other than those specified in subpart O of this part, may be approved as a UN standard packaging by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. Such intermediate bulk containers must be shown to be equally effective, and testing methods used must be equivalent. The exemption numbers must be retained for reference. (4) Exemptions issued for IBC packagings after the effective date of this final rule will be based on the construction and testing standards established in subparts N and O to part 178 in this final rule. Although not a complete list, the following 128 exemptions authorizing IBCs are potentially affected by the adoption of the UN IBC standards: 5520 6743 7259 7543 7622 7625 7869 8087 8094 8136 8146 8225 8303 8332 8351 8444 8570 8588 8629 8631 8653 8681 8692 8779 8784 8798 8839 8861 8871 8883 8884 8910 8921 8937 8942 8982 9015 9042 9046 9052 9062 9078 9089 9092 9110 9116 9117 9133 9140 9144 9150 9201 9213 9272 9289 9319 9340 9367 9374 9396 9400 9440 9498 9503 9519 9531 9533 9534 9592 9628 9637 9645 9658 9690 9692 9701 9713 9783 9789 9804 9805 9806 9819 9846 9889 9917 9920 9923 9938 9944 9983 9996 10021 10090 10104 10135 10172 10273 10298 10318 10340 10362 10468 10476 10513 10537 10547 10562 10563 10570 10598 10633 10679 10687 10694 10725 10738 10764 10775 10811 10826 10828 10837 10841 10852 10864 10894 10897 II. Summary of Rulemaking Actions in Response to Comments Seventy-three commenters responded to the NPRM. Commenters unanimously supported general adoption of IBC standards based on Chapter 16 of the UN Recommendations, but with modifications for domestic transportation. One commenter said that adoption of international IBC standards ``will not only ensure safety and facilitate transport but will improve competitiveness of American industries engaged both in the sale of hazardous materials, and of hazardous materials packagings, in the global marketplace.'' Other specific comments are addressed in Part III, Review by Section. Based on the merits of comments, RSPA is: (1) limiting the applicability of ``secondary protection'' to IBCs intended for vessel transportation, in accordance with the IMDG Code (RSPA also is requiring Packing Group I and II hazardous materials in certain IBC types to be further packed in closed transport vehicles); (2) permitting replacement of repaired add- on plastic components; (3) revising the definition of IBC ``body'' by excluding service equipment, thus permitting more flexibility in what previously were considered design-type changes, without requalification testing; (4) establishing a vibration test requirement for rigid IBCs and a vibration capability standard for flexible IBCs; and (5) setting forth in a single table in Sec. 178.803 the IBC design qualification testing proposed in Secs. 178.810-819 for the certification of metal, rigid plastic, composite, fiberboard, wooden, and flexible IBC types. RSPA also is adopting certain recommendations approved for the Eighth revised edition of the UN Recommendations during the 17th session of the UN Committee of Experts (December 7-16, 1992). These include authorization of Packing Group I solids in IBCs, with certain quantity restrictions; addition of a Packing Group I drop test, and deletion of the 10-minute hold on production line leakproofness testing. RSPA is establishing generic IBC commodity assignments in Secs. 173.240 through 173.243 with certain special provisions in Sec. 172.102. Generally, IBC commodity assignments are based on the lists of liquid and solid ``Substances Suitable for Transport in Intermediate Bulk Containers,'' contained in the IMDG Code. However, RSPA is authorizing the use of IBCs for some materials that are not allowed by the IMDG Code to be transported in any IBC or in a specific IBC type. Because DOT Specification 56 (DOT 56) and 57 (DOT 57) portable tanks are functionally IBCs, these design-types will be covered by the provisions of this rule. This coverage will obviate the necessity to maintain these older standards for metal IBCs. Consequently, RSPA is not authorizing the manufacture of DOT 56 and 57 portable tanks after October 1, 1996. However, RSPA will permit continued domestic use of DOT 56 and 57 portable tanks for as long as they meet the retest provisions contained in Sec. 173.32(e). For reasons discussed in Part III, Review by Section, RSPA is not adopting commenters' suggestions to: (1) remove the proposed 450-liter (119- gallon) lower IBC capacity limit, (2) authorize non-specification IBCs, (3) remove testing requirements for periodic design requalification by incorporating quality assurance programs based on documentation, or (4) permit reuse of flexible IBCs. RSPA also is not adopting the five-year limit on plastic IBC service proposed in Secs. 173.35(h) and 180.351(c). III. Review by Section Part 171 Section 171.7. A puncture-resistance standard for fiberboard packagings (ISO 3036-1975) is added to the table of material incorporated by reference in paragraph (a), as approved by the Federal Register. RSPA believes that approved changes in the frequency of IBC design requalification testing must be based on a detailed quality assurance program, but not on any particular set of quality assurance standards. RSPA believes that limiting quality assurance standards to those set forth in ISO 9000 by itself would not be adequate. Therefore, reference to the quality assurance standard under ISO 9000 in proposed Sec. 178.801(e)(2)(i) is deleted. Section 171.8. A definition of ``intermediate bulk container'' is added in this section to mean a rigid or flexible portable packaging, other than a cylinder or portable tank, which is designed for mechanical handling. The proposed reference to ``semi-rigid'' IBCs is not adopted because specifications have yet to be developed for this type of IBC construction. IBC capacity limits have been removed from the general IBC definition in this section and are placed in the IBC standards in Sec. 178.700(c)(1). The definition ``UN standard packaging'' is revised to include reference to newly added subparts N and O of Part 178. In this final rule, ``secondary containment'' applies only to IBCs intended to be transported by vessel which may require ``secondary protection,'' as specified in Section 26 of the IMDG Code. Therefore, the definition ``secondary containment'' is removed (See discussion in the preamble to Sec. 173.240-243). Section 171.12. This section is revised to authorize the use of IBCs in accordance with the IMDG Code for shipments involving transportation by vessel. RIBCA suggested that RSPA amend paragraph (b)(5) to require rigid IBCs to pass the vibration test in proposed Sec. 178.819. RIBCA said this test ``needs to apply to all IBCs being transported in this country.'' This suggestion is not adopted. In final rules under Docket HM-181, RSPA did not require that imported non-bulk packagings be capable of passing the vibration standard in Sec. 178.608, unless they are filled or refilled in the U.S. In this final rule, USA-marked rigid IBCs, and foreign-manufactured rigid IBCs filled in the U.S., must withstand the vibration test in Sec. 178.819. Flexible IBCs must be capable of withstanding this test. Part 172 Sections 172.101-102. The Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) is revised by adding special provisions B100, B101, B103 and B104 as proposed. These special provisions prohibit the transportation of particular materials in certain or all IBCs, and set forth special conditions for use of IBCs. In this final rule, Special Provision B101 is revised to authorize metal IBCs for certain liquid and solid materials. Proposed B102 is incorporated into B101, and is not adopted. IBC authorizations pertaining to six materials under Special provisions B101 and B100 have been revised in this final rule. Five dual hazard materials proposed to be authorized only in metal IBCs under Special provision B101 also are authorized generically for metal IBCs Sec. 173.243. To remove this redundancy, the references to B101 for these materials have been removed from the Sec. 172.101 Table. For consistency with the IMDG Code, in this final rule, RSPA is prohibiting the use of IBCs for several Division 4.3 and Division 4.2 Packing Group I materials that were inadvertently authorized in the notice. Also for consistency with the IMDG Code, RSPA is adding additional IBC use limitations and operating requirements in Special provisions B105, B106, B108, B109 and B110. For example, B106 requires that IBCs be ``vapor tight'' (i.e., IBCs that will prevent any vapor from entering or escaping during transportation. A vapor tight IBC must be capable of passing the leakproofness test in 178.813). Special provision B108 requires that materials in Division 4.3 Packing Group III be in sift-proof, water resistant flexible, fiberboard or wooden IBCs packed in a closed transport vehicle. Special provision B110 authorizes IBCs for Bromobenzyl cyanides, solid and Divinyl ether, inhibited only if packaged in accordance with Sec. 173.242(d). These materials inadvertently reference Secs. 173.240 and 173.241. Section 172.322. In response to a petition for reconsideration received under Docket HM-211 addressing marine pollutants, this section is revised to provide a partial exception from the marine pollutant marking requirements for small bulk packagings (packages with capacities of up to 3,785 liters [1,000 gallons]). Consistent with recently adopted marine pollutant requirements for other bulk packages, IBCs (limited to an upper capacity of 3,000 liters, 793 gallons) require two, instead of four, marine pollutant markings. Section 172.514. Paragraph (c)(4) is added, as proposed, to require all IBCs to be labeled or placarded on two opposite sides. Part 173 Section 173.24. Paragraph (d) is revised to require IBCs manufactured under performance-oriented standards to conform to subparts N and O of part 178. The requirement that measures must be taken to prevent electrostatic discharge proposed in paragraph (j) of this section, has been moved in this final rule to Sec. 173.35(k). Section 173.32. A grandfather provision for DOT 56 and 57 portable tanks is added in paragraph (d). DOT 56 and 57 portable tanks may not be manufactured after September 30, 1996. DOT 56 and 57 portable tanks manufactured before October 1, 1996, may continue in hazardous materials service for the commodities currently authorized as long as they meet the retest requirements in paragraph (e) of this section. One commenter pointed out that the retest requirements (every two years) for DOT 52, 53, 56 and 57 portable tanks in Sec. 173.32(e)(1)(ii) should be made consistent with the 2.5 year retest and inspection requirements in (b)(1) and (b)(2) for all other IBCs intended for liquids or for solids loaded and discharged under pressure. The commenter said ``this consistency would be most helpful in establishing general retest procedures at user sites.'' RSPA agrees that, for consistency with retest period requirements for metal, rigid plastic and composite IBCs in Sec. 180.352, DOT 52, 53, 56 and 57 portable tanks should be retested every 2.5 years. Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) is revised accordingly. Dual-marked portable tanks certified to both pre-October 1, 1996 DOT 56 or 57 specifications and the metal IBC standards adopted in this final rule must conform to the pre-October 1, 1996 retest requirements in Sec. 173.32(e) and the metal IBC retest and inspection requirements adopted in subpart D to part 180 of this final rule. Section 173.35. This section contains operational requirements for the use of IBCs. IBC filling limits and vapor pressure limits for rigid plastic or composite IBCs intended to contain liquids or solids are addressed. Under this section, each IBC and its service equipment, before being filled and offered for transportation, must be visually inspected to ensure that it is free from corrosion, contamination, cracks, or other damage which would render it unsafe for transportation. Operational requirements prescribed in this section apply only to IBCs manufactured in accordance with subparts N and O of part 178. For DOT 52, 53, 56 and 57 portable tanks, operational requirements remain in Sec. 173.32. DOT 56 and 57 portable tanks manufactured before October 1, 1996 continue to be subject to requirements in Sec. 173.32 for the service life of these units. Commenters opposed the proposed ban, in paragraph (b), on the use of rigid plastic or composite IBCs with repaired plastic components. RIBCA contended that ``precluding replacement or repair of any damaged plastic component would quickly remove IBCs from service long before they have served their useful lives.'' RIBCA added that many plastic components are satisfactorily replaced or repaired. RIBCA suggested that paragraph (b) be amended to read: ``no rigid plastic or composite IBC with a repaired plastic body (except for openings and closures) may be reused,'' but that it allow such essential plastic parts as closures, pallets, valve door or leg, to be replaced. Consistent with a new UN-recommended definition of ``IBC body'' as the ``receptacle proper'' that does not include service equipment (see Sec. 178.700(c)(1)), RSPA agrees that no repair of a rigid plastic IBC body or plastic inner receptacle should be permitted. RSPA agrees, therefore, proposed paragraph (b) is revised in this final rule to permit repair or replacement of add-on plastic components. Under this revision, for example, repair of a threaded opening considered part of the IBC body is not permitted. Conversely, replacement of service equipment, such as a screw-on plastic closure with stripped threads, is permitted. Several commenters, including the Chlorobenzene Producers Association (CPA), asked RSPA to remove the proposed provision in paragraph (b) forbidding reuse of flexible IBCs. CPA said such a prohibition is wasteful and unnecessary and there is no basis for rejecting the inspection and reuse alternative for flexible IBCs. CPA asserted that a ban on flexible IBC reuse would aggravate U.S. solid waste disposal problems and that the ban ``conflicts with goals of waste minimization.'' Another commenter said that ``economics, safety and environmental concerns all point to reusability.'' CPA added that a categorical ban on flexible IBC reuse also would retard innovation in the development of flexible IBC design types, including development of durable, reusable construction materials. RSPA does not agree that reuse of flexible IBCs should be permitted. Flexible IBCs have not been permitted to be reused in the past under provisions of exemptions or approvals. RSPA does not have evidence that fiberboard, wooden or flexible IBCs are designed to be, or are suitable for, reuse in hazardous materials service. Therefore, as proposed in paragraph (b), fiberboard, wooden and flexible IBCs may not be reused for hazardous materials. One commenter said proposed paragraph (c), requiring added thickness to compensate for IBC body thinning by corrosion or mechanical abrasion, does not go far enough. The commenter recommended that shippers be required to ``verify lading compatibility to the IBC material of construction.'' The commenter said that allowing an increased thickness to compensate for corrosion ``could lead to the failure or leakage of a metallic IBC.'' The commenter added that rates of corrosion are ``affected by temperature, pressure, etc., and therefore, added thickness may not be enough to prevent a leaker.'' RSPA disagrees. Shippers currently are required to comply with general requirements in subpart B of part 173 to assure the integrity of all hazardous materials packagings under conditions normally incident to transportation. Section 173.24(e)(1) specifically requires that all packagings be compatible with their lading. Failure to comply with compatibility requirements in Sec. 173.24(e)(1) may result in a thinning of the IBC body below thickness standards specified in Sec. 178.705(c) for metal IBCs, possibly resulting in leakage. RSPA believes that increasing IBC body thickness is necessary to ensure design-type integrity. Therefore, as proposed, RSPA is adopting paragraph (c) requiring that a metal IBC, subject to thinning by mechanical abrasion or corrosion due to the lading, be protected by providing a suitable increase in thickness of material, a lining or some other suitable method of protection. Three commenters, including the National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA), opposed the five-year authorized period for use of rigid plastic IBCs and plastic inner receptacles of composite IBCs proposed in paragraph (h). One commenter said that a use restriction should not be included in a final rule without further input from industry regarding what a suitable in-use life should be for plastic IBCs, following the approach taken for non-bulk plastic packagings. For domestic uses of plastic IBCs, RSPA concurs with these commenters and, therefore, is not adopting the five-year use restriction for rigid plastic IBCs and inner plastic receptacles of composite IBCs proposed in paragraph (h). Internationally, the five-year use restriction may still be applied. Proposed paragraph (i) is adopted as paragraph (h) and is clarified to distinguish between the use of gauge and absolute pressures when determining suitability of plastic and composite IBCs for liquid hazardous materials based on their vapor pressures. The test pressure marked on the IBC is a gauge pressure. Gauge pressure consists only of the vapor pressure of the hazardous material in the IBC that exceeds atmospheric pressure. Absolute pressure consists of ambient atmospheric pressure plus the vapor pressure of the hazardous material in the IBC. Vapor pressure of the hazardous material is the pressure exerted on the IBC by gases emitted by the material. RIBCA pointed out that proposed vapor pressure requirements in paragraph (i)(2) apply to all IBCs, whereas in proposed paragraph (d)(2)(viii) in Secs. 173.241 and 173.242, identical requirements apply only to metal IBCs. Accordingly, paragraph (h)(2) in this final rule applies the 110 kPa (16 psi) vapor pressure restriction only to metal IBCs. There is a test pressure limit for metal IBCs of 200 kPa (29 psig) which must not be exceeded by the vapor pressure of any material times a factor of safety of 1.5 or 1.75 depending on temperature. Consistent with recommendations in the Eighth revised edition of the UN Recommendations, RSPA also is adding paragraph (j), which establishes a maximum capacity of 1.5 cubic meters (17.7 cubic feet) for rigid plastic, composite, flexible, fiberboard, and wooden IBCs authorized to transport Packing Group I solids. For metal IBCs, the maximum allowable capacity for Packing Group I solids remains at 3 cubic meters (35.3 cubic feet). No Packing Group I liquid is authorized in IBCs (see paragraph (d)(2)(i) in Secs. 173.242 and 173.243). Several commenters urged RSPA not to adopt proposed paragraph (j) in Sec. 173.24 pertaining to the prevention of electrostatic discharge. They claimed that the discharge danger occurs only in plant operations and not during transportation. One commenter asserted that the wording of proposed paragraph (j) ``establishes a new requirement applicable to all packagings.'' RSPA agrees that prevention against electrostatic discharge is not required during transportation, although a danger does exist during loading and unloading operations. Accordingly, RSPA is revising the requirement proposed in paragraph (j) to prevent electrostatic discharge only during the loading and unloading of flammable liquids and powders that could result in an explosion. This requirement applies to IBCs used in all modes, not just highway (see Sec. 177.837(b)). Because this is an operational requirement, the provision proposed in Sec. 173.24(j) is moved to Sec. 173.35 and adopted as paragraph (k). Section 173.225. As proposed, RSPA is adopting a modified form of Table 11.4 in the UN Recommendations, authorizing four organic peroxide materials in 31HA1 composite IBCs. Special conditions for certain organic peroxides transported in IBCs also are prescribed. One commenter requested an extension of organic peroxide authorizations in IBCs to include all organic peroxides in the Type F and G categories, liquids and solids, if they meet the definitions for those categories in Sec. 173.128. RSPA agrees that type F organic peroxides currently authorized for bulk packagings are suitable for IBCs. Therefore, RSPA is amending footnote 14 to the Organic Peroxides Table in Sec. 173.225 to authorize IBCs for Type F organic peroxides. Because Type G organic peroxides are not subject to the requirements of this section, there are no IBC restrictions that apply to this material. Sections 173.240-243. These generic bulk packaging sections are amended to authorize IBCs for certain solids and liquids and in Secs. 173.242 and 173.243 to prohibit the use of IBCs for Packing Group I. In Secs. 173.242 and 173.243, RSPA is authorizing Packing Group I solids in both metal IBCs with capacities of up to 3 cubic meters (35.4 cubic feet) and non-metal IBCs with capacities up to 1.5 cubic meters (17.7 cubic feet). Commenters urged RSPA to authorize non-specification IBCs consistent with existing packaging provisions which permit non- specification portable tanks for low-hazard materials, and with Sec. 173.150(f)(3), which allows combustible materials meeting no other hazard class criteria to be shipped in non-specification bulk containers. These requests are not adopted. RSPA believes that IBCs should meet the performance standards adopted in this rule as a condition for use. Therefore, metal, rigid plastic, composite, fiberboard, wooden and flexible IBC types authorized in Secs. 173.240(d) and 173.241(d) must be constructed as prescribed in subpart N, and tested in accordance with subpart O, of part 178. The NPRM inadvertently proposed that certain dual-hazard materials be authorized for transport in all rigid IBCs. The generic authorizations proposed in Sec. 173.243 for these materials deviate from the level of containment intended for these materials. Therefore, consistent with RSPA's policy, as stated in Docket HM-181, to emphasize package integrity as a principal means of maintaining hazardous materials transportation safety, Sec. 173.243(d)(1) is revised to limit multiple-hazard materials to metal IBCs. One commenter noted that, under the proposed regulation, materials having a subsidiary hazard of Class 3, but with a flash point higher than 100 deg. F, or having a subsidiary hazard of Division 6.1, Packing Group III, would no longer be authorized in DOT 57 portable tanks. The commenter urged RSPA to address this situation in this rulemaking. Under HM-181, most liquid multiple-hazard materials are assigned packagings in Sec. 173.243, which does not specifically list the DOT 57 portable tank. RSPA recognizes that in HM-181, certain materials with low subsidiary hazards of flammability and toxicity have been assigned packaging in Sec. 173.243 (generic authorizations for certain high hazard liquids and dual hazards) for the transport of these materials. Therefore, in Sec. 173.243(e) of this final rule, a dual hazard material with a subsidiary hazard of either Class 3 with a flash point exceeding 100 deg.F or Division 6.1, Packing Group III, may be packaged in accordance with Sec. 173.242. In this final rule, specific IBC requirements for Division 4.3 DANGEROUS WHEN WET materials are provided under Special Provisions in the Sec. 172.101 Table. Therefore, generic IBC authorizations and operating requirements for these materials in proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(v) and (d)(2)(vii) in Secs. 173.240, 173.241, 173.242 and 173.243 are not adopted (see previous discussion under Sec. 172.101). Commenters opposed the broad applicability of the proposed ``secondary containment'' requirement as proposed in the NPRM, which stated that freight containers or vehicles containing IBCs ``should have rigid sides or fencing at least to the height of the IBCs.'' Several commenters asserted that applying such a requirement to IBCs shipped by surface transportation would create hardships for retail dealers and farmers. RIBCA said the proposed definition of ``secondary containment'' would preclude the use of IBCs or greatly increase handling costs. Commenters urged RSPA to narrow the applicability of ``secondary containment'' to vessel transportation and to use the term ``secondary protection,'' consistent with the IMDG Code. RSPA concurs. Accordingly, in this final rule, the proposed requirement that materials in Packing group II be transported in IBCs employing secondary containment are removed. IBCs containing hazardous materials intended for transportation may require secondary protection in accordance with Section 26 of the IMDG Code. However, RSPA believes that, consistent with the terms in many existing IBC exemptions, medium-level and higher hazard materials in certain IBC types must be protected from environmental exposure. Since the broad applicability for ``secondary containment'' has not been adopted for highway and rail transportation, RSPA is adding Secs. 173.242(d)(2)(iv) and 173.243(2)(iii) requiring flexible, fiberboard, wooden and composite IBCs with fiberboard outer bodies for Packing Group I materials and in Secs. 173.240(d)(2)(ii), 173.241(d)(2)(iii) for Packing Group II materials in flexible, fiberboard and wooden IBCs must be transported in closed freight containers or closed transport vehicles. Because a general standard is established in Sec. 178.704 requiring all IBCs be sift-proof and water resistant, RSPA is not adopting proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vi) in Secs. 173.240, 173.241, 173.242 and 173.243 requiring flexible, fiberboard or wooden IBCs used to transport Class 8 materials to be water resistant. In Secs. 173.240, 173.242, 173.242 and 173.243 proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ix) prohibiting the use of bottom outlets on IBCs containing materials with a primary hazard class of 3 and a subsidiary hazard class of Division 6.1 is not adopted in this final rule. RSPA believes prohibiting the use of bottom outlets on IBCs goes beyond existing requirements in the HMR and would not be consistent with other packaging authorizations. If use of bottom outlets on IBCs containing these materials presents a safety concern, this issue can be considered in a future rulemaking. Part 178 Sections 178.251, 178.252 and 178.253 are removed since the manufacture of DOT 56 and 57 metal portable tanks is prohibited after September 30, 1996 (see Sec. 173.32 (d)). Section 178.700. The purpose and scope of IBC standards and general definitions associated with IBCs are contained in this section, generally as proposed. In response to commenter requests, RSPA is revising the definition of IBC ``body'' in paragraph (c)(1) by adopting terms originally proposed by the U.S. and now contained in the Eighth revised edition of the UN Recommendations: an IBC body means ``the receptacle proper, including openings and their closures, but does not include service equipment. * * *'' As a result of this change, IBC ``service equipment'' (i.e., filling and discharge, pressure relief, safety, heating and heat-insulating devices, and measuring instruments) is no longer considered part of the IBC body. This section also defines IBC ``structural equipment'' as the reinforcing, fastening, handling, protective, or stabilizing members of the body (e.g., metal cages) as well as stacking load-bearing structural members. Also in the definition of IBC body, as proposed, RSPA is adopting IBC volumetric capacity limits of not more than 3 cubic meters (3,000 liters, 793 gallons or 35.3 cubic feet) and not less than 0.45 cubic meters (450 liters, 119 gallons or 5.3 cubic feet). The proposed 450-liter (119-gallon) lower IBC capacity limit drew substantial comment. Commenters suggested that RSPA either eliminate the lower capacity limit or, at a minimum, establish a 250-liter (66- gallon) lower limit consistent with Section 26.1.2.1 of the IMDG Code. RIBCA questioned the need for a lower limit and stated that small IBCs under 450 liter (119-gallon) capacity already are authorized under exemptions. For example, DOT E-9690 authorizes 415.8-liter (110-gallon) IBCs. RIBCA noted that small IBCs have been used for years in agricultural and water treatment operations. RIBCA added that allowing small IBCs into the U.S. under Sec. 171.12, but not allowing U.S. manufacturers to market small IBCs domestically, creates competitive disadvantages. Commenter requests to remove the IBC lower capacity limit are not adopted in this final rule. RSPA is not authorizing IBCs with capacities less than 450 liters (119 gallons) because RSPA believes that differing non-bulk and IBC construction standards, performance and reuse requirements could create safety inequities in the use of these two packaging categories. For example, a drum manufacturer might call a drum or jerrican an IBC to gain certain kinds of regulatory relief. Metal and plastic drums and jerricans intended for reuse must meet minimum thickness standards in Sec. 173.28(b)(4), while no such standards are proposed for stand-alone or composite IBCs. Metal and plastic drums designed for limited hazardous materials service must be leakproofness-tested before each reuse (Sec. 173.28(b)(2)). IBCs would be subject to a completely different retest and inspection scheme requiring leakproofness testing every 2.5 years (Sec. 180.352) In addition, drop, stacking, and hydrostatic pressure design performance requirements for non-bulk packagings in subpart M of part 178 substantially differ from those proposed for IBCs in subpart O of part 178. Although IBCs with capacities below 450 liters (119 gallons) represent only a small percentage of the total number of IBCs in domestic service, RSPA recognizes that IBC manufacturers and users may occasionally need a full capacity range of IBC design types. In this final rule, therefore, a provision in paragraph Sec. 178.801(i) provides for the manufacture and use of IBCs which differ from the standards in subpart N, including IBCs with capacities less than 450 liters (119 gallons), if approved by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. RSPA notes that IBCs with lower capacities may continue to be used for import and export shipments, as provided in Sec. 171.12. RSPA is not adopting a proposal by the Oregon Trucking Association and several Oregon-based carriers to include a rubber bladder bag among the UN- recommended IBC design types RSPA is adopting in this final rule. Although bladder bags are designed for mechanical handling (as are IBCs), they do not meet any of the material-of-construction standards for the flexible IBCs that were proposed in subpart N of part 178. Flexible IBC standards were developed with the intent that these packagings would contain dry materials. Standards for flexible IBCs intended for liquids do not appear in the UN Recommendations and were not considered in this rulemaking. Bulk bladder bags may be used for hazardous materials requiring specification packaging only if specifically authorized under an exemption issued in accordance with subpart B of 49 CFR, part 107. Section 178.702. This section, adopted as proposed, contains IBC code designations for metal, rigid plastic, composite, fiberboard, wooden, and flexible IBCs. Section 178.703. Certification and additional marking requirements for IBCs are set forth in this section. The IBC certification mark is comprised of the following elements: UN symbols, code numbers designating IBC type, Packing Group designation, month and year of manufacture, the country authorizing allocation of the mark, name and address or symbol of the manufacturer or the approval agency certifying compliance with subparts N and O of part 178, the stacking test load in kilograms (kg), and the maximum permissible gross mass (for flexible IBCs, the ``maximum net mass'' as defined in Sec. 171.8 in kilograms (kg)). RSPA is adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A), establishing the mark ``X'' for IBCs meeting Packing Group I, II and III performance test standards. Four examples of IBC certification marking are provided in Sec. 178.703(a)(2) (i) through (iv). Two examples of additional markings are given in Sec. 178.703(b)(3) (i) and (ii). One commenter asked RSPA to allow manufacturers or others certifying flexible IBCs to omit the ``UN-in-a-circle'' symbol because ``such symbols are difficult to reproduce'' on flexible IBCs. The commenter noted that this option already is provided for metal IBCs. This request is not adopted because RSPA is not aware that use of the ``UN-in-a-circle'' has been a problem for manufacturers of flexible IBCs in other countries. In paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(i) among additional marking requirements, rigid, composite and metal IBCs must be marked for ``rated'' capacity. Rated capacity is capacity normally used compared to ``maximum capacity,'' which is defined in Sec. 171.8 as ``the maximum inner volume of receptacles or packagings.'' RIBCA commented that paragraph (b), requiring additional marks to be located ``in a place readily accessible for inspection,'' could lead to enforcement problems ``because there is no possible way to find a location that will assure that under all circumstances in usage the markings would always be visible for inspection.'' RIBCA said the phrase ``for inspection'' conveys an ``operational intent'' that ``could be used by inspectors'' in the field. RIBCA suggested that RSPA follow the general policy established for drums in Sec. 178.503(a) and carried over in the proposed Sec. 178.703(a): ``in addition to markings in paragraph (a) of this section, each metallic, rigid plastic and composite IBC'' be marked ``in a durable and clearly visible manner.'' This request is not adopted because for larger packages (e.g., IBCs), the phrase ``readily accessible for inspection'' is necessary to ensure that the mark can be seen by an inspector without lifting the package. RIBCA objected to the paragraph (b)(1) proposal to require use of specification plates for rigid plastic and composite IBCs. It contended that required use of plates ``can lead to less desirable and less permanent means of marking.'' RIBCA noted that paragraph (a) does not require markings on a plate. RIBCA suggested that the markings set fort
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 220287