{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0286","title":"Packaging Applications for Dangerous Goods, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2009-02-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0286 response to Packaging Applications for Dangerous Goods, LLC concerning 180.352.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0286.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0286.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0286","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080286.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. David Gluntz\nPackaging Applications for Dangerous Goods, LLC\n3583 Blackbottom Court\nColumbus, OH 43221-4501\nRef No. 08-0286\nDear Mr. Gluntz:\nThis responds to your November 24, 2008 email requesting clarification of the provisions in the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to intermediate bulk\ncontainers (IBCs). In your letter, you present two scenarios:\nScenario 1: If the specification markings on an IBC are destroyed, removed, or covered up, is the\npackage still an IBC?\nResponse 1: Because the specification markings are destroyed, removed, or covered up, the\npackaging no longer meets the standards of an IBC in accordance with the HMR. The packaging\nin your scenario is a non-specification bulk packaging.\nScenario 2: The only specification marking on a packaging is a serial number. The serial number\nwas traced back to a packaging manufacturer who states the packaging was manufactured as a\nUnited Nations (UN) standard IBC. Must the packaging, originally a UN standard IBC, be\nretested in accordance with 5 180.352?\nResponse 2: The answer is no. The packaging in your scenario is not represented as meeting a\nUN standard, and, therefore, is not required to be retested in accordance with 5 180.352. As\nstated in 5 180.352, each IBC constructed in accordance with a UN standard for which a test or\ninspection specified in paragraphs (b)(l), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of 5 180.352 is required may not be\nfilled and offered for transportation or transported until the test or inspection has been\nsuccessfully completed. Additionally, your packaging may not be used to transport a hazardous\nmaterial required by the HMR to be transported in UN standard or DOT specification packagings\nonly.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.\nat tie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nPage 1 of 1\nDrakeford, Carolyn <PHMSA>\n--\" - \"\" - - \" . --- -- -\nFrom: Foster, Glenn <PHMSA>\n06-028d\nSent: To: Monday, November 10,2008 7:06 AM\nINFOCNTR <PHMSA>; Drakeford, Carolyn <PHMSA>; Mazzullo, Ed <PHMSA>\nSubject: RE: Specification markings\nFrom: davidgluntz@padgllc.com\nTo: infocntr@dot.gov\nSubject: Specification markings\nDate: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:08:28 -0400\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nFriday, September 26th, I spoke with Glenn in the DOT's Information Center. He was very polite,\nknowledgeable and it was a pleasure to work with him.\nI asked Glenn two questions and would like a written confirmation because there currently is\nconfusion within the transportation industry regarding these questions.\nQuestion 1: I f the specification markings on a packaging such as an Intermediate Bulk Container\n(IBC) were destroyed, removed or covered up, is the packaging still an IBC? Glenn responded:\nNo. Because the specification markings were destroyed, removed or covered up, the packaging no\nlonger meets the 49 CFR's specification for an IBC.\nQuestion 2: The only specification marking left on a packaging is the serial number. The serial\nnumber was traced back to the packaging manufacturer who stated that the packaging was\noriginally manufactured as an IBC. Question: must this packaging (originally an IBC) be retested\nper 49 CFR 180.352? Glenn responded: No. Because the packaging's markings are not per the 49\nCFR's IBC specification, the packaging no longer is an IBC and is outside the DOT's regulatory\njurisdiction.\nI am looking forward to settling this issue.\nSincerely,\nDavid Gluntz\nCONFIDENTIALITY IVOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of\nthe intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any\nunauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. I f you are not the intended\nrecipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.\nDavid C. Gluntz\nPackaging Applications for Dangerous Goods, LLC\n3583 Blackbottom Court\nColumbus, OH USA 43221-4501\nOffice (614) 529-0712\nCell (614) 425-7118\ndavidq luntz@padqllc.com\nwww . pads!l_c,~p_m \" .. --","truncated":false,"body_characters":4262}