{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0165","title":"Black Forest Marketing, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-07-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0165 response to Black Forest Marketing, LLC concerning 173.24, 178.601, 178.801.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0165.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0165.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0165","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080165.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJUL 1 8 2008\nMr. Tom Leftwich\nBlack Forest Marketing, LLC\n6 17 N. Main Street\nGreenville, NC 29601\nRef. No. 08-0165\nDear Mr. Leftwich:\nThis responds to your request for clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;\n49 CFR Parts 17 1 - 180) regarding the periodic design requalification testing and authorization\nfor use in the United States (U.S.) of certain UN specification packaging's. Specifically, you\nask whether new single packagings, UN 3 1A rigid intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) and\nUN 1Al non-removable head steel drums, that are manufactured and marked in Germany, are\nauthorized for use in the United States if the original design qualification tests were conducted\nmore than 12 months ago with no subsequent testing. You also ask whether approval must be\nobtained from the Associate Administrator of Hazardous Materials Safety (Associate\nAdministrator), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S.\nDepartment of Transportation (DOT), if the German-manufactured packages do not conform\nto the HMR's frequency requirements for periodic design requalification testing and also\nwhether the Associate Administrator's approval must be obtained if the German manufacture\ncomplies with the HMR's 12-month frequency testing requirement with the approval of the\nGerman competent authority. You reference $9 173.24, 178.601 and 178.801 in your letter.\nWith respect to the frequency intervals for periodic design requalification testing,\n$8 178.601 (e) and 178.801 (e) apply to U.S. manufactured packagings. Section 173.24(d)\nauthorizes the import and use of foreign manufactured specification and UN standard\npackagings in the U.S. provided: (1) the packagings fully conform to applicable provisions in\nthe UN Recommendations and the requirements of Part 173, Subpart B, including reuse\nprovisions; (2) the packagings are capable of passing the prescribed tests in Part 178 of this\nsubchapter applicable to the standard; and (3) the competent authority of the country of\nmanufacture provides reciprocal treatment for UN standard packagings manufactured in the\nUnited States. When these provisions are met, approval from DOTIPHMSA's Associate\nAdministrator is not required for German-manufactured UN 3 1A IBCs and UN 1Al drums\nwith a periodic design requalification testing frequency interval that is longer than the HMR's\n12-month frequency testing interval when authorized by Germany's competent authority.\nFurther, Associate Administrator approval is not required if the German manufacturer\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\ncomplies with the HMR's 12-month frequency testing requirement with the approval of the\nGerman competent authority.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office should you have additional\nquestions.\nSincerely,\nHattie L. Mitchell, Chief\nRegulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nBlack Forest\nM A R K E T I N G\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\nJune 2,2008\nBlack Forest Marketing, LLC\n617 N. Main St.\nGreenville, SC 29601\nPh 864-282-2302\nRe: Annual Periodic Testing\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nMy company, Black Forest Marketing, LLC, represents a German manufacturer of Rigid Intermediate Bulk\nContainers and closed & open head stainless steel drums. The manufacturer is UCON Container\nSystems located in Haiger and Hausach, Germany. A prospective customer has made an inquiry\nregarding the annual periodic testing requirements for non-US produced lBCs and closed head drums. I\nam requesting a letter of clarification on the requirements for single packagings both rigid intermediate\nbulk containers (IBCs) and drums under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMF; 49 CFR Parts 171-\n180). 1 have a few specific questions regarding these two UN approved packagings:\n1. 2. 3. Is a new UCON produced and marked UN31A IBC authorized for use in the US even if the\noriginal design qualification tests were conducted in a previous year - greater than 12 months\nprior?\nIs a new UCON produced and marked UNlAl drum authorized for use in the US even if the\noriginal design qualification tests were conducted in a previous year - greater than 12 months\nprior?\nIs it necessary for non-US IBC and closed head drum manufactures to gain authorization from the\nAssociate Administrator (US DOT) if the packagings they produce do not conform with the 12\nmonth testing frequency as described in HMR 178.801(e) & 178.601(e), respectively (provided\nthe manufacturers meet the criteria for changes in frequency and with the approval of their\ncompetent authority)?\nIn reference to the above, please refer to HMR sec. 173.24(d)(2) which describes UN standard packaging\nmanufactured outside the US. I have also attached a letter of clarification from the addressee's office\nwhich describes similar questions regarding flexible intermediate bulk containers - please refer to\nquestions #2 & #3.\nI appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your reply.\nBest regards,\nTom Leftwich\nBlack Forest Marketing, LLC\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nU.S. Department\naf Transportation\nResearch and\nSpecial Pmgrams\nAdminishaHon\n400 Sevenlh St., S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nOCT 4 2001\nMr. Dzintars Petersons Project Engineer\nAdvanced Packaging Technology .\nLaboratories Inc.\n200 Larkin Drive #H\nWheeling, IL 60090 '\na Ref. No: 01 -0236\nDear Mr. Petersons:\nThis is in response to your September 18,200 1 letter requesting clarification on the requirements for\nflexible intermediate bulk containers'(1~Cs) under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49\nCFR Parts 171-1 80). Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\n1. How much variance is allowed in length, width and height of a flexible IBC when using the\nsame design criteria, the same t&t data and the material and eons&uction are the same?\nDoes the maximum gross weight change in the UN specification marking when decreasing the\nsize of a flexible IBC? Can you dkcrease the size of the flexible IBC more than 25% without\nfurther testing?\nIn accordance with § 178.801(c)(7)(iii), a flexible IBC is permitted to differ h m a previously qualified\ndesign type by having lesser external dimensions provided the materials of construction and fabric\nweight remain the same. There is no limit on the reduction of external dimensions as long as the smaller\nFIBC still meets the requirements of subpart N regarding size. The weight of the FIBC does not need\nto be reduced when the dimensions of the flexible IBC are reduced.\n2. What wiU it take to have the requirements for retesting changed from every 12 months to\nthe same requirements for European 'manufacturers?\n* .\n'You may request an approval to ch'mge the periodic design requalification as provided by\n9 178.801 (e)(2) or you may petition for 'rulemaking under the provisions of 9 106.3 1.\n3. Must flexible IBCs built outside of the USA be design qualified every 12 months? What if\nthe competent authority authorizes a different retest period?\n. .\nUnder the UN recommendations, BCs must be manufactured and tested under a quality assurance\nprogram that satisfies the competent authority, in eider to assure that each IBC meets the specified test\nrequirements. The USA competent authoritjl, through the HMR, requires design requalification at 12-\nmonth intervals. If the competeni authority for a country authorizes a different retest period, that\npackaging may still be used in the U.S.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n4. Do flexible IBCs produced in Mexico that are certified in Mexico and shipped to the USA,\nhave a requalification date or are they good forever?\nThe Mexican competent authority establishes the requalification date for IBCs manufactured and\ncertified in Mexico.\n5. Does Mexico have a competent authority? If so, who? Does Turkey have a competent\nauthority? If so who?\nBoth Mexico and Turkey have competent authorities. You may access a list of international competent\nauthorities though our website at h~v://~iazrnat.dot.~ov by cLicking on \"International Standards\" then on\n\"International List of Competent Authorities andlor Contacts for the Transport of Dangerous Goods.\"\n6. If a country has no identifiable competent authority and manufactures IBCs what state do\nthey identify in the certification marking?\nIf a country has no identifiable competent authority, it is only pemitted to apply a UN certification to a\npackaging if it has an agreement with another country that has a competent authority and authorizes use\nof their mark.\n7. Is the issue of reuse of flexible IBCs still under reconsideration at DOT?\nReuse of IBCs is authorized in § 173.35(b), which allows reuse of an IBC, other than a multi-wall\npaper IBC, subject to the conditions set forth therein.\n8. Are flexible IBCs allowed to be reused without testing or showing in any way that the IBC\nis still as substantial as a new flexible IBC?\nFlexible IBCs may be reused as permitted by § 173.35(b). In particular, $ 173.35(b)(1) requires an\nekternal visual inspection to determine that the IBC is free from corrosion, contamination, cracks, cuts,\nor other damage which would render it unable to pass the prescribed design type test to which it is\ncertified and marked. Also, §.180.352(~)(2) provides the minimum inspection requirements for the\nreuse of flexible IBCs. This requires that the lifting straps are securely fastened, the seams are free of\ndefects, and the fabric is free of cuts, tears or punctures:\n9. Have guidelines been set or proposed as to how many times a flexible JBC may be reused\nbefore it needs recertification?\nThere is no limit to the amount of times a flexible LBC may be reused as long as it meets the\nrequirements of $5 173.24, 173.24b, 173.35 and 180.352(c)(iii).\n10. When a standard is adopted into ISO, does DOT adopt it as it applies to regulated\nmaterials and their certification?\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nWhen a standard is adopted into the UN Recommendations, DOT evaluates inclusion of the provisions\ninto the HMR and, if desirable for U.S. transportation, proposes the changes in a notice of proposed\nrulemaking.\n11. Has DOT granted exemptions for certain bags as far as reuse is concerned?\nCertain flexible lBCs had been authorized for reuse under DOT exemptions; however, these\nexemptions are no longer required since reuse of flexible IBCs is now permitted under the regulations.\n12. Do the UN guidelines recognize DOT exemptions?\nGenerally, DOT exemptions are applicable to use in the U.S. only. However, certain DOT exemptions\nalso act as competent authority approvals, that are used in international transportation. An exemption\nthat is also a competent authority approval will have a statement identifying it as such in the exemption.\n13. If a flexible' IBC is manufactured in a foreign country and then shipped to the US where it\nis marked with a UN certification may it be marked \"USAn as the state of manufacture?\nYes, we consider marking of a UN packaging to be the final step of manufacture. A packaging marked\nin the U.S. may be considered as being manufactured in the U.S.\n14. What testing is required for two flexible IBCs that are identical in materials of\nconstruction and design, except that one bag has a duffel top and one bag has a spout top?\nDo all the tests have to be performed on both bags or only the ones that might affect the top\nof the bag, such as the topple test in § 178.816? Would two top lift tests have to be\nperformed?\nBoth flexible IBCs would require complete design qualification testing as different packagings. At this\ntime the HMR do not address selective testing for IBCs.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\ntZ--Jrw Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Off~ce of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards .,\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nADVANCED PACKAGING\nTECHNOLOGY L A B O ~ T O R I E S INC.\n~ O - u Q - l Q\ni ~ n . W I\n. - - \"\n200 LARKIN DRIVE #H - WHEELING, IL 60090\nPhone: (847) 5204343 Fax: (847) 520-4365 Email: aptl@flash.net - Web www.advanced-labs.com\nSeptember 18,2001\nDonald Burger Gen. Engr.\nPackaging, DHM-22.1\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nDOTRSPA\n400 7\" St.\nWasbington, DC 20590\nRe: Clarification and Interpretation of CFR 49 as it pertains to the Flexible Intermediate Bulk Bag Industry\nDear Mr. Burger:\nI wauld like to introduce myself. 1 am a Mechanical Engineer at Advanced Packaging Technology\nLaboratories. My primary function is that of assuring the accuracy of the testing and compliance when\nconducting UN/DOT protocols, as they pertain to Hazardous Materials packaging. We are also a\nmember of FIBCA Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association. FIBCA has a technical\ncommittee, which I am heading. The committee has determined that we should enlighten our members\non the requirements of Flexible IBC's which will be transporting hazardous materials, their compliance\nissues and any gray areas.\nThe object of this co~espondence is to present, in advance, any questions that our members have\npresented to me for clarification on a number of issues. These issues will be a topic of discussion at our\nOctober meeting in Monterey, California. I hope to meet your representative there.\n1. HOW much variance is allowed in length, width and height of a flexible IBC when using the same\ndesign criteria and the same test data if the material and construction are the same? Does the\nweight in kgs change in the TJN number when decreasing the size of the flexible IBC? Can you\ndecrease the size of the flexible IBC more than 25% without further recertification testing?\n2. What will it take to have the requirement for retesting changed from every 12 months to the same\nrequirements as European manufacturers?\n3. Are design requalXcation tests of at least 12 months applicable to flexible IBC's built outside the\nUSA?\n4. Are design requalification tests of at least 12 months applicable to flexible IBC's certified outside\nthe USA where the competent authority authorizes a different retest period?\n5. Flexible IBC's produced in Mexico, certified in Mexico and shipped to the USA: Do these flexible\nIBC's have a requalification date or is it good forever?\n6. D m Mexico have a competent authority? If so, who? Does Turkey have a competent authority?\nIf so, who?\n7. When a country has no identifiable competent authority and these flexible IBC's are shipped into\nthe USA, how is this handled?\n1 PACKAGING, TESTING, Cf RTlFlCATlON AND DESIGN REVIEW\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n8. Is the issue of reuse of flexible IBC's used in shipping regulate or hazardous materials still under\nreconsideration at DOT?\n9. Are flexible IBC's allowed to be reused without retesting or showing in any way that the IBC is\nstill as substantial as a new flexible IBC?\n10. Have any guidelines been set or proposed as to how marry times a flexible IBC can be reused,\nrepaired or used before it needs recertification?\n11. When the EN standard is adopted into ISO, does DOT have intention on adopting these standards,\nas they wouId apply to regulated materials and their certification? If these standards are adopted,\nwill the reusable flexible IBC criteria be used? If these standards are adopted, will DOT eliminate\nthe practice of self-certification by manufacturers of flexible IBC's? Any idea as to a timeline for\nthese activities?\n12. Has DOT granted special exemptions for certain bags as far as their reuse is concerned?\n13. Do the UN guidelines recognize special exemptions?\n14. Clarification on the issue of foreign produced bags being brought into the USA and then printed\nwith a UN certification number. We have been told that DOT will consider this as a U.S. produced\nbag, based on the fact that printing on the bag is considered the final act of manufacturing.\n15. When fallowing the testing requirements called out in CFR 49 Part 178 Sub-part 0 \"Testing of\nIntermediate Bulk Containers\", what is required when there are two flexible TBC's that are identical\nin materials and design, except one bag has a duffel top and one bag has a spout tap? Do all the\ntests have to be performed on both bags or only the ones that might impact the top of the bag, such\nas the Topple 178.8 16? Would two top lift tests have to & performed?\nYour help in resolving these questions would be very helpful for our members in FIBCA.\nShould you have any additional questions regarding the information provided, please do not hesitate to\ncontact us.\nSincerely,\n~ g n t a r s Petersons\nProject Engineer (UN Testing)","truncated":false,"body_characters":16493}