{"operation":"document","citation":"05-0173","title":"Wrangler Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2005-08-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"05-0173 response to Wrangler Corporation concerning 178.707.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0173.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0173.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0173","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2005/050173.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nHazardous Materials Safery\nPipeline and\nAUG 2 9 2005\nAdministration\nMr. Russell Keith\nRef. No.: 05-0173\nEngineering\nWrangler Corporation\nP.O. Box 1970\n68 First Flight Drive\nAuburn, Maine 04211\nDear Mr. Keith:\nThis is in response to your July 15, 2005 letter requesting further clarification of our\nintermediate bulk containers (IBC) under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49\nletters to you dated June 28, 2005, December 8, 2004, and November 9, 2004 concerning\nas an \"11HH2\" composite IBC and ask whether an inner receptacle of a composite IBC\nCFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you provide documentation describing your packaging\ndesigned for solids, loaded or discharged by gravity, requires its own closure if the outer\nreceptacle provides closure to the IBC.\nAs we stated in our previous letter, as specified in § 178.707, a composite IBC is an IBC\nthat consists of a rigid outer packaging and is designed to bear the entire stacking load.\nBased on the description of your packaging in your most recent letter and after careful\nconsideration by this Office, it has been determined that your packaging does not meet\nthis standard. Therefore, your packaging may not be marked with the IBC code\ndesignation\"1 1HH2,\" and the closure requirements of the inner receptacle of a composite\nIBC do not apply to your packaging.\nIf you believe your packaging provides a level of safety equivalent to the United Nations\n(UN) 11HH2 specification, or another IBC specification, and can deronstrate this, you\nmay wish to apply for an exemption for your packaging.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\nSusan Gorsky\nActing Director\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n178.707\n050173\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nFoster\n§178.707\nWRANGLER CORPORATION\nIBC\n65 First Flight Drive\nP.O. Box #1970\n05-0173\nTele: 207-777-3100 Fax: 207-777-317\nAuburn, Maine 0421:\nCORPORATTO\nwww.wranglerzone.com\nJuly 15, 2005\nTo: Hattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Retention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nU.S. DOT/PHMSA (DHM-10)\n4007 Street SW,\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nSubject: Reference Number 04-0024, 05-0112 and 00-0158: Interpretation of\nconstruction of a Composite IBC for solids\nDear Mrs. Mitchell:\nWe appreciate you taking your time and reviewing this matter on our behalf. As\nof late we have become frustrated with the viewpoint that our containers are being\nevaluated as a Rigid Plastic using the Rigid Plastic standards. We concur our containers\ndo not meet the Rigid Plastic standards and we do not mark them as such. We have never\nrepresented our containers as a rigid plastic. Our containers are marked as a Composite\npackage and we comply with that standard. Our packages provide a safe, reliable and\ncost-effective solution for our customer's product transportation needs. We appreciate\nyour time to look into this issue quickly as possible given the critical nature of this\nmatter. More than 90% of our containers are shipped with these markings and\napproximately 50% of these containers are shipped internationally. Thank you again for\nyour prompt attention.\nSincerely,\nRussell Keith\nEngineering\nWrangler Corporation\nEmail: rkeith@wranglerzone.com\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFoster\nWRANGLER CORPORATION\n$178.707\n65 First Flight Drive\nAuburn, Maine 0421\nP.O. Box: #1970\nIBC\nTele: 207-177-3100 Fax: 207-777-317\nwww.wranglerzone.com\n05-0173\nJuly 12, 2005\nTo:\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nU.S. DOT/RSPA (DHM-10)\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\n400 7* Street SW,\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nSubject: Reference Number 04-0024 and 05-0112: Interpretation of construction of a\nComposite IBC for solids\nDear Mr. Director:\nOn July 7, 2005 Wrangler Corporation placed a call to your office in order to gain some\nclarification on the letter we received from your office dated June 28, 2005. We spoke\nwith Mr. Glenn Foster in your office to understand how it was concluded that our\npackage did not meet the Composite Packaging Standard. During this conference call\nwith Mr. Foster, he informed us verbally that the concurrence letter we received from\nHattie L. Mitchell dated September 21, 2000 was rescinded by your letter dated\nDecember 8, 2004. This was the first that we knew of the December letter. We never\nreceived this letter. Once Mr. Foster informed us about the letter we did find it on the\nDOT website. We believe we did not receive the letter because we noticed that the\nheader of the letter had an incorrect address. All other correspondence during this time\nframe has been addressed correctly.\nAfter having read the December 8, 2004 letter, whose purpose as we were informed by\nMr. Foster, was to rescind Hattie Mitchell's concurrence letter. We are perplexed as why\nin the current letter and the previous letters from your office kept addressing the\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\ncontainer's design as a Rigid Plastic and referencing those standards. But reading the\nexplanation in the letter it mentions Composite Packaging and not references those\nstandards. We have clearly stated in our correspondence with your office that our\npackage meets the standards of a Composite IBC and were confirmed as such in 2000 by\nHattie Mitchell. We concur with your conclusion our design type does not meet the\nstandards of a Rigid Plastic. We recognize our letter dated February 9, 2004\ninadvertently reopened an old issue and a subsequent letter was sent to your office\nclarifying our question in the February 2004 letter. Our question is does an inner\nreceptacle of a Composite IBC designed for solids, loaded or discharged by gravity need\nits own closure if the outer receptacle provides closure to the IBC as a whole? Since\nFebruary 9, 2004 we have been trying to attain clarification to this question and have not\nreceived a specific response.\nWe now find ourselves having to retrace previously resolved issues. We will detail\naccording to the Composite Standards section §178.707 why we meet the definition of a\ncomposite IBC and to demonstrate once again why Hattie Mitchell concurred with our\nmarkings for over four years.\nIn response to the letter dated December 8, 2004 that rescinds the concurrence letter we\nreceived from Hattie L. Mitchell dated September 21, 2000 reference number 00-0158.\nWe would have addressed this issue immediately had we received the December 8, 2004\nletter. The December 8,2004 letter states that \"Upon further evaluation, we have\ndetermined that the packaging referenced in your May 23, 2000 letter does not conform\n1o the specification for a composite IBC, and, thus, may not be marked with the IBC code\nIIHH2,\". As specified in $178.706(b), rigid plastic IBC's consist of a rigid plastic\nFormatted\nbody... \" Your letter continues referencing §178.706(b), which relates to the standards for\nRigid Plastic IBC's. Your letter never states why we do not meet specifications of a\nComposite IBC and the standard for that is $178.707. It seems to us that the letter should\nreference the correct standard and the specifications of that standard when giving a\nresponse.\nBelow we will layout section by section as to why we believe Hattie Mitchell concurred\nwith our conclusion. When our package is evaluated using the Composite Packaging\nStandards (which is distinctly separate from Rigid Plastic, Metal, Fiberboard, Wooden,\nand Flexible) using the specifications within the standard we clearly demonstrate that our\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\ncontainers conform to the requirements set forth for a Composite IBC and the 11HH2\nmarking is appropriate.\nThe \"11HH2 marking\" identifies our container as a \"Composite IBC\"(§178.707)\nand not a Rigid Plastic IBC (§178.706). Composite IBC's are a separate designs category\nnot a subtype of another design category. In no part of the $178.707 standard for\ncomposite IBC's does it indicate or specify that a composite IBC must first satisfy\nanother design category. Nor is this stated in the general IBC standards of §178.705.\nMetal §178.705, Rigid Plastic §178.706, Composite §178.707, Fiberboard §178.708,\nWooden §178.709, and Flexible $178.710. All are independent design categories with\ntheir own design construction standards and specifications. The design types are further\ndifferentiated under the testing requirements in Subpart O testing of IBCs, in that Rigid\nPlastic IBCs and Composite IBCs are listed and tested as separate IBC types $ 178.803 as\nare Metal, Fiberboard, Wooden and Flexible IBC types.\nOur containers are designed in a manner that they meet the §178.707 standard.\n§178.707(c) is the \"Construction requirements for composite IBCs with plastic inner\nreceptacles ... (1) The outer packaging must consist of a rigid material formed so as to\nprotect the inner receptacle from physical damage during handling and transportation,\nbut is not required to perform the secondary containment function. It includes the base\npallet where appropriate. The inner receptacle is not intended to perform a containment\nfunction without the outer packaging. \"\nThe definitions for composite IBC types given in §178.707(b) does not state the\noutermost layer or individual components are to be rigid but requires the outer packaging\nas a whole be rigid. The outer packaging of our containers is plastic and fiberboard. The\ncomponents are bonded together to produce the rigid outer packaging. The fiberboard is a\nstructural component of the outer packaging. Using the definition given in §178.707\n(b)(1) \"....ogether with any service or other structural equipment\" the fiberboard is a\nstructural member of the outer package. In addition the standards do not state that any\nindividual component part must be able to support a stacking load, rather it states, \"the\nouter packaging of a composite IBC is designed to bear the entire stacking load\" and\nonly if it is designed to be stacked. (See marking of IBCs §178.703(1)(vii)) The complete\nouter packaging is to be considered and not the individual components. Our individual\ncomponents bonded together produce the rigid outer structure called for in §178.707.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nSubpart N- IBC Performance Oriented Standards uses the singular tense of\n\"material\" but infers that more than one material may be used in the construction of the\nouter packaging. To this point nails, staples, and glue are used to fabricate wood based\nIBCs. Our container uses plastic, glue and fiberboard as its material of construction.\nAlso §178.707 does not state that a composite IBC (11HH2) be constructed entirely of a\nsingle material (i.e. plastic) or even a homogeneous mixture. If this were the case, nails\nstaples and glue used, as structural components of wooden IBCs would have to be\nremoved prior to design consideration and testing, which is clearly not the case. Our\nouter packaging is a \"composite\" utilizing plastic on the very outer layer laminated to\nrigid fiberboard to provide the protection for our inner receptacle.\nUsing the definition for plastic given for composite IBCs $178.707(b)(2) \"The term\nplastic means polymeric materials (i.e. plastic or rubber) \" the woven-coated\npolypropylene meets the definition of plastic. With no reference to Rigid or Flexible\nplastic types, a Flexible plastic is permitted as a component part of an outer receptacle for\na Composite IBC. The marking for a \"Composite IBC\" designed for solids, loaded or\ndischarged by gravity with a flexible plastic inner receptacle is 11HZ2 (§178.707(a)(2)).\nAs instructed in §178.707(a) the \"Z\" is to be replaced by a capital letter, which indicates\nthat the material used for the outer packaging. In HMR; 49 CFR §178.702(a)(2)\nspecifies the capital letter \"\"H\" means plastic\". Our containers have \"plastic outers\" so\nper the regulation we replaced the \"Z\" with the \"H\" to achieving the 11HH2 marking.\nPrior correspondences and telephone conversations with personnel from your office\n(DOT) have directed us to mark our containers as a Composite type with the 11HH2\nmarking. Furthermore a letter Hattie L. Mitchell Chief, Regulatory Review and\nRetention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards reference number 00-0158 dated\nSeptember 21, 2000 states that our containers satisfy the composite requirements. The\nsubsequent letter dated December 8, 2004 again uses the assumption that the outer must\nfirst satisfy the requirements of a Rigid Plastic. This can not be the case as the two\ndesign categories are different each with their own construction requirements. Reviewing\nthe appropriate sections of Subpart N- IBC Performance Oriented Standards (plural)\n§178 clearly indicates that each package category is to be constructed using the\nappropriate construction requirements for the package type. The individual construction\nrequirements are located in §178.705(c), 706(c), 707(c), 708(c), 709(c), and 710(c) for\nthe different IBC types.)\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nOur containers have a plastic inner receptacle supported by a rigid outer packaging. The\ndesign is constructed using a plastic (Polypropylene fiber) and is of known material\nspecification, and is resistant to aging and degradation caused by ultraviolet radiation.\nAgain referencing the definition of plastic in Section §178.707(b)(2) \"The term plastic\nmeans polymeric material (i.e., Plastic or rubber) \" thus it is clear our container meets the\nrequirements of this standard. In §178.707(c)(1) it states that: \"The outer packaging\nmust consist of rigid material formed so as to protect the inner receptacle from physical\ndamage during handling and transportation, but is not required to perform the secondary\ncontainment function. It includes the base pallet where appropriate. The inner receptacle\nis not intended to perform a containment function without the outer packaging. \" The\ncontainer is to be placed on a pallet and transported as a unit thus protecting the bottom.\nThe outer packaging is designed to protect the inner receptacle from damage. The inner\nreceptacle is not intended to function without the outer packaging. The inner and outer\npackaging are to be filled, stored, transported, and discharged as a unit.\nThis basic design premise has not changed from the time we received the concurrence\nletter from Hattie Mitchell in September of 2000. Two improvements were added in\n2004. The structural members of the outer packaging are now bonded together and the\nouter packaging and the inner receptacle are also bonded together.\nIn one of your responses your office states \"the woven plastic outer sheet... does not\nexhibit strength relative to its capacity and service it is required to perform. \" The plastic\nshell of the outer packing is a woven matrix of extruded fiber whose mechanical\nproperties are superior to many thermals set polymers. Our woven Polypropylene fiber is\nthe same material used daily in millions of IBCs, many of which carry UN markings.\nWoven Polypropylene fiber has been the industry standard for IBC's for many years\nbecause of its superior strength and durability. As stated above the woven outer\nPolypropylene fiber is of known material specification, and is resistant to aging and\ndegradation caused by ultraviolet radiation. The packaging does demonstrate strength\nrelative to its capacity and to the service it is required to perform as determined by the\nperformance testing as required in section §178.803 Testing and Certification of IBCs.\nAll certification testing was conducted at a certified subcontractor testing facility. The\ncontainer design type was tested as a Composite IBC per section §178.803 and included\nvibration, bottom lift, stacking, and drop tests. The vibration tests demonstrate the\ncontainers are capable of surviving the rigors of transport. The bottom lift test\ndemonstrates that the containers can be safely handled and moved. The stacking test is\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nconducted at a temperature of 104°F for 28 days and is intended to reveal creep failures.\nThe final test required is the drop test, and is conducted after the filled container and\ncontents are conditioned to 0°F prior to being dropped. All testing was conducted using\nfull containers in both weight and volume as per the test standards. The subject containers\npassed all prescribed tests clearly demonstrating that the packaging as designed does\nprovide the proper level of safety and is suited to the duty it is required to perform.\nThe containers do meet the design requirements as outlined in §178.707 Standards for\nComposite IBCs. They pass all the testing requirements of Subpart O -Testing of IBCs\nand that the appropriate marking is 11HH2. We have been manufacturing and marking\ncontainers of similar construction for more than four (4) years and we did this based on\nDOT recommendations.\nAs the container meets the design requirements of section §178.707. The container's\nouter packaging is built up using a plastic outer shell together with a fiberboard structural\nwall. The inner receptacle is also plastic but is not intended to provide support to the\nstructure, but is intended to be filled, transported and emptied as a unit. As described on\nthe previous supplied specification sheet the inner receptacle does not close off but\nterminates at the top of the unit. The two cover flaps of the outer receptacle provide\nclosure to the entire packaging.\nOur question remains does an inner receptacle of a Composite IBC designed for solids,\nloaded or discharged by gravity need its own closure if the outer receptacle provides\nclosure to the IBC as a whole. The language in the regulation is ambiguous on whether a\nclosure is needed on the inner receptacle. Because the regulations do not call for a\nspecific type of closure on an inner receptacle or even if a closure is required.\nIn conclusion, we have been marking this design type since 2000 and have shipped\nthousands of containers worldwide containing materials requiring our type of packaging\ndesign. This issue puts our company at great risk of loosing more than 50% of its\nexisting business and requesting an exemption for marking our containers as a Composite\nputs at risk this business given most of the units with this design are shipped worldwide.\nWe thank you in advance for your prompt response and reviewing the matter quickly as\npossible since this has significant ramifications for our company. We are confident you\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nwill concur with Hattie Mitchell and us that our containers are appropriately marked as a\ncomposite.\nSincerely,\nRussell Keith\nEngineering\nWrangler Corporation\nEmail: rkeith@wranglerzone.com\nCc John H. Lapoint- President\nHattie Mitchell -Chief Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office\nOf Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>","truncated":false,"body_characters":18620}