# Reusable Industrial Packaging Association, MD Packaging Solutions LLC & Lawrence W. Bierlein, Esq. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **operation:** document - **citation:** 12-0056R - **title:** Reusable Industrial Packaging Association, MD Packaging Solutions LLC & Lawrence W. Bierlein, Esq. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **source type:** guidance - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** guidance - **official:** true - **published on:** 2014-02-26 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** 12-0056R response to Reusable Industrial Packaging Association, MD Packaging Solutions LLC & Lawrence W. Bierlein, Esq. concerning 180.350, 180.352. - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0056r.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0056r.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0056r - **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2012/120056R.pdf **body:** <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.L PHC-1 0, Room E26-331 Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Phone: (202)366-4400 Fax: (202) 366-7041 Hazardous Materials Safety taw Division LETTER OF INTERPRETATION February 26, 2014 Mr. Paul W. Rankin, President Reusable Industrial Packaging Association 51 Monroe Street, Suite 812 Rockville, MD 20850 Reference No.: 12-0056R and CHI-13-00IR Dear Mr. Rankin: On May 16, 2012 and August 16,2013, PHMSA issued Interpretations No. 12-0056 and CHI- 13-001, respectively. At the request of the Reusable Industrial Packaging Association, a review ofthose letters and the relevant requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180), PHMSA hereby rescinds both letters and issues the following Interpretation with respect to the matters discussed in those letters. In accordance with§ 180.350(b), the replacement of the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC with one from the original manufacturer is considered a repair. As stated in § 180.352(d)(l), repaired IBCs may be returned to service provided: (i) The repaired IBC conforms to the original design type, is capable of withstanding the applicable design qualification tests, and is retested and inspected in accordance with the applicable requirements of this section; (ii) an IBC intended to contain liquids or solids that are loaded or discharged under pressure is subjected to a leakproofness test as specified in§ 178.813 of this subchapter and is marked with the date of the test; (iii) the IBC is subjected to the internal and external inspection requirements as specified in § 180.352(b ); (iv) the person performing the tests and inspections after the repair [emphasis added] must durably mark the IBC near the manufacturer's UN design type marking to show the country in which the tests and inspections were performed, the name or authorized symbol of the person performing the tests and inspections, and the date (month, year) of the tests and inspections; and (v) retests and <<>> 2 inspections performed in accordance with paragraphs (d)( 1 )(i) and (ii) of this section may be used to satisfy the requirements for the 2.5 and five year periodic tests and inspections required by paragraph§ 180.352(b). Additionally, in accordance with 180.352(g)(l), the owner or lessee of the IBC must keep records of periodic retests, initial and periodic inspections, and tests performed on the IBC if it has been repaired and manufactured. As stated in 180.352(g)(2), those records must include design types and packaging specifications, test and inspection dates, name and address of test and inspection facilities, names or name of any person conducting the test or inspections, and test, inspection specifics and results. In accordance with 180.352(g)(3), those records must be kept for each packaging at each location where periodic tests are conducted, until such tests are successfully performed again or for at least 2.5 years from the date of the last test. These records must be available for inspection by a representative of the Department of Transportation upon request. In summary, as noted above, a person replacing the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC with one from the original manufacturer must then fulfill all of the HMR requirements associated with the repair of the IBC, including tests, inspections, record-keeping, and marking. Joseph Solomey, Senior Assistant Chief Counsel for Hazardous Materials Safety 2 <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.L PHC-1 0, Room E26-331 Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Phone: (202)366-4400 Fax: {202) 366-7041 Hazardous Materials Safety taw Division LETTER OF INTERPRETATION February 26, 2014 Mr. Dan Dengler MD Packaging Solutions LLC 11 Olde Mill Run Medford, NJ 08055 Reference No.: 12-0056R and CHI-13-00IR Dear Mr. Dengler: On May 16,2012 and August 16,2013, PHMSA issued Interpretations No. 12-0056 and CHI- 13-00 1, respectively. At the request of the Reusable Industrial Packaging Association, a review of those letters and the relevant requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180), PHMSA hereby rescinds both letters and issues the following Interpretation with respect to the matters discussed in those letters. In accordance with§ 180.350(b), the replacement of the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC with one from the original manufacturer is considered a repair. As stated in§ 180.352(d)(l), repaired IBCs may be returned to service provided: (i) The repaired IBC conforms to the original design type, is capable of withstanding the applicable design qualification tests, and is retested and inspected in accordance with the applicable requirements of this section; (ii) an IBC intended to contain liquids or solids that are loaded or discharged under pressure is subjected to a leakproofness test as specified in§ 178.813 of this subchapter and is marked with the date of the test; (iii) the IBC is subjected to the internal and external inspection requirements as specified in§ 180.352(b); (iv) the person performing the tests and inspections after the repair [emphasis added] must durably mark the IBC near the manufacturer's UN design type marking to show the country in which the tests and inspections were performed, the name or authorized symbol of the person performing the tests and inspections, and the date (month, year) ofthe tests and inspections; and (v) retests and <<>> 2 inspections performed in accordance with paragraphs (d)(l)(i) and (ii) of this section may be used to satisfy the requirements for the 2.5 and five year periodic tests and inspections required by paragraph§ 180.352(b ). Additiorta1Iy,~iri accordance witnT80.352(g)(l), the owner or lessee of the IBC must keep records of periodic retests, initial and periodic inspections, and tests performed on the IBC if it has been repaired and manufactured. As stated in 180.352(g)(2), those records must include design types and packaging specifications, test and inspection dates, name and address of test and inspection facilities, names or name of any person conducting the test or inspections, and test, inspection specifics and results. In accordance with 180.352(g)(3), those records must be kept for each packaging at each location where periodic tests are conducted, until such tests are successfully performed again or for at least 2.5 years from the date of the last test. These records must be available for inspection by a representative of the Department of Transportation upon request. In summary, as noted above, a person replacing the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC with one from the original manufacturer must then fulfill all of the HMR requirements associated with the repair of the IBC, including tests, inspections, record-keeping, and marking. 2 <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.L PHC-10, Room E26-331 Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Phone: (202)366-4400 Fax: (202} 366-7041 Hazardous Materials Safety law Division LETTER OF INTERPRETATION February 26,2014 Lawrence W. Bierlein, Esq. 1101 30th Street NW Suite 500 Washington DC 20007 Reference No.: 12-0056R and CHI-13-00lR Dear Mr. Bierlein: On May 16, 2012 and August 16,2013, PHMSA issued Interpretations No. 12-0056 and CHI- 13-001, respectively. At the request of the Reusable Industrial Packaging Association, a review of those letters and the relevant requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180), PHMSA hereby rescinds both letters and issues the following Interpretation with respect to the matters discussed in those letters. In accordance with § 180.3 50(b ), the replacement of the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC with one from the original manufacturer is considered a repair. As stated in § 180.352(d)(l), repaired IBCs may be returned to service provided: (i) The repaired IBC conforms to the original design type, is capable of withstanding the applicable design qualification tests, and is retested and inspected in accordance with the applicable requirements of this section; (ii) an IBC intended to contain liquids or solids that are loaded or discharged under pressure is subjected to a leakproofness test as specified in§ 178.813 of this subchapter and is marked with the date of the test; (iii) the IBC is subjected to the internal and external inspection requirements as specified in§ 180.352(b); (iv) the person perfonning the tests and inspections after the repair [emphasis added] must durably mark the IBC near the manufacturer's UN design type marking to show the country in which the tests and inspections were performed, the name or authorized symbol of the person performing the tests and inspections, and the date (month, year) of the tests and inspections; and (v) retests and <<>> 2 inspections performed in accordance with paragraphs (d)(l)(i) and (ii) of this section may be used to satisfy the requirements for the 2.5 and five year periodic tests and inspections required by paragraph§ 180.352(b). Additionally, in accordance with 180.352(g)(l), the owner or lessee of the IBC must keep records of periodic retests, initial and periodic inspections, and tests performed on the IBC if it has been repaired and manufactured. As stated in 180.352(g)(2), those records must include design types and packaging specifications, test and inspection dates, name and address of test and inspection facilities, names or name of any person conducting the test or inspections, and test, inspection specifics and results. In accordance with 180.352(g)(3), those records must be kept for each packaging at each location where periodic tests are conducted, until such tests are successfully performed again or for at least 2.5 years from the date of the last test. These records must be available for inspection by a representative of the Department of Transportation upon request. In summary, as noted above, a person replacing the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC with one from the original manufacturer must then fulfill all of the HMR requirements associated with the repair of the IBC, including tests, inspections, record-keeping, and marking. 2 <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., PHC-10, Room E26-331 Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Phone: (202)366-4400 Fax: (202) 366-7041 Email: joe.solomey@dot.gov Hazardous Materials Safety Law Division LETTER OF INTERPRETATION August 16, 2013 Lawrence W. Bierlein, Esq. 1101 30th Street NW Suite 500 Washington DC 20007 Reference No.: CHI-13-001 Dear Mr. Bierlein: On May 16,2012, PHMSA issued PHMSA Interpretation No. 12-0056 (Interpretation) ofthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) related to the repair of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs). Due to correspondences between yourself and this office, I thought it necessary to clarify PHMSA' s interpretation of the HMR as it relates to the repair of IBCs. More specifically, this letter will cover the requirement to test, inspect, and durably mark damaged IBCs that have been repaired. As stated in§ 180.352(d)(l), damaged IBCs may be repaired and the inner receptacles of composite packagings may be replaced and returned to service provided: (i) The repaired IBC conforms to the original design type, is capable of withstanding the applicable design qualification tests, and is retested and inspected in accordance with the applicable requirements of this section; (ii) an IBC intended to contain liquids or solids that are loaded or discharged under pressure is subjected to a leakproofness test as specified in§ 178.813 of this subchapter and is marked with the date of the test; and (iii) the IBC is subjected to the internal and external inspection requirements as specified in§ 180.352(b). In the interpretation 12-0056, PHMSA clarified that the HMR allow a company that repairs IBCs to rely on the leakproofness test and internal visual inspection of a replacement inner receptacle conducted by a third party. PHMSA also affirmed that the company relying on the third party <<>> 2 testing and inspection would need evidence to establish that the leakproofuess test and internal visual inspection was performed in accordance with§ 178.813 and the internal visual inspection was performed before the IBC is filled and offered for transportation(§ 180.352(g)). Furthermore, the letter stated that this evidence should be from the third party that performed the tests and inspections and identify the company as able to rely on that testing for the purposes of the repair. It is the responsibility of the person that repairs the IBC to make sure these requirements are met before the IBC is filled and placed into transportation in commerce. If an inspector shows up at a company's facility and sees that it conducts repairs of composite IBCs by replacing the rigid inner receptacle, the company must provide evidence ofleakproofness tests and internal visual inspections. If the testing and inspections are done on-site, this is generally done at the discretion of the inspector through a demonstration of the company's testing or inspection procedures. If the company relies on a third party to conduct the required testing and inspections, then the company must provide evidence of its reasonable and mutually acknowledged reliance. In your correspondence dated August 24, 2012, you cited an email between William Schoonover, PHMSA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, and Paul Rankin, the President of Reusable Industrial Packaging Association, as evidence that the Interpretation had been, in part, "retracted by the head of Field Operations as unnecessary". Specifically, you say that based on this email exchange a company does not need an individual letter addressed to it from a manufacturer. Furthermore, you proposed that this contradicts and therefore invalidates (at least in part) the Interpretation issued just three months earlier. We would like to clarify that Mr. Schoonover correctly expressed the Agency position that a letter individually addressed to a company is not needed. However, this does not contradict the Interpretation. A company wishing to rely on a third party's leakproofness test and internal visual inspection in the circumstances described in the Interpretation is obligated to provide evidence of a mutually recognized arrangement between the two companies in the form of an acknowledgment of that arrangement. It need not be in a letter at all. Therefore, nothing from Mr. Schoonover in the exchange you cited contradicts the Agency guidance set forth in PHMSA Interpretation No. 12-0056. Once a company replaces the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC, according to the HMR, it has conducted a repair. This triggers the requirement for a leakproofuess test and an internal visual inspection as specified in §180.352(d)(l)on the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC. Additionally, in accordance with § 180.3 52( d)(l )(iv), the person performing the tests must durably mark the month and year of the testing and inspections after the repair. If the inner bottle has been tested, inspected, and marked by a third party, the date durably marked must also reflect the date of repair. If the inner bottle is marked with the month and year prior to the date of repair, it would need to be re-tested in accordance with §180.352(d)(1). Therefore, in response to your correspondence dated August 24, 2012, I am issuing this letter as a clarification and affirmation ofPHMSA Interpretation No. 12-0056. 2 <<>> 3 I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, 11 /) l f ;·~ \ . I y· / \ ... · 1 .rr?J,/l -;·-"-4-(J-/;,(1~.-). ·;~·;j'-/I' !, <.J ' 0 / Joseph Solorney, ' Senior Assistant Chief Counsel for Hazardous Materials Safety 3 <<>> .•. ~....,_.._!'"~ ' Lear~ .;>Jgo.S52- "I.'&C.. lZ-606~ MD Packaging Solutions, LLC 11 Olde Mill Run Medford, NJ 08055 Phone (609) 499-1311, Fax (866) 439-1713 U.S. DOT PHMSA Office of Hazardou~ Materials Standards Attn: Plffi-1 0 East Building 1200 New Jersey A venue, SE. Washington, DC 20590-0001 To whom it may concern: I am seeking clarification/interpretation of section 180.352 "Requirements for retest and inspection offfiCs". By definition section 180.350 defmes a "REPAIRED IBC" as among other things, the replacement of the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC with one from the original manufacturer. Question seeking interpretation: In the process of Repairing an IBC or replacing the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC with one from the original manufacturer, does the manufacturer's (of the new inner receptacle) original leak proof test satisfy the required leak proof test per 178.813 for the repaired IBC? Does it matter if the previous outer cage was not damaged and the reason for the REP AIR is simply because the previous inner receptacle could not cleaned? Any assistance that you could provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Dan Dengler MD Packaging Solutions LLC 11 Olde Mill Run Medford, NJ 08055 Ph (609)-499•1311 ddengler@mdpkg.com <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 MAY 1 6 2012 Mr. Dan Dengler MD Packaging Solutions LLC 11 Olde Mill Run Medford, NJ 08055 Ref. No. 12-0056 Dear Mr. Dengler: This responds to your February 6, 2012 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the requirement for retest and inspection of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs). Specifically, you ~kif you may rely on the leakproofness test and internal visual inspection conducted by the original manufacturer to satisfy the requirement in § 180.352 when repairing an IBC or replacing the inner receptacle of a composite IBC. Yes. As speciiled in§ 180.352(d)(l), each repaired IBC must be subjected to a leakproofness test as specified in § 178.813, an internal visual inspection and must be marked with the date of the test. The inner receptacle of a composite IBC may be leakproofness tested without the outer packaging provided the test results are not affected(§ 178.813(b)). If you choose to rely on the leakproofnesstest conducted by the manufacturer ofthe inner receptacle to satisfy this requirement, you must have evidence to establish that the leakproofness test was performed in accordance with § 178.813 and the internal visual inspection was performed before the IBC is filled and offered for transportation(§ 180.352(g)). The evidence of these tests/inspections should be from the manufacturer of the inner receptacle and identify your company as able to use this certification. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office. Ben Supko Acting Chiet: Standards Development Standards and Rulemaking Division <<>> MAUSER USA, LLC MAUSER USA, LLC 35C Cottars lane East Brun&Widc, New Jersey 08816 USA Mr. Mike Porreca President National Container Group MRUSER Christopher Lind, Director Technology and Regulatory Affairs Phone: 732.353.7014 Fax: 732.353.7074 Chris.Lind@Mausergroup.com East Brunswick 3/5/2012 Subject: IBC Inner Receptacles The inner receptacles for IBCs or replacement bottles are visually inspected for defects prior to valve installations. After valve installation the bottles are leakproofness tested in accordance with Sec. 178.813 to insure the bottom seam and valve are intact and leak free, capped and security sealed. The bottles are molded with the marks required by 49 CFR 178.703 (b) (6) (i): (6) For each composite IBC, the inner receptacle must be marked with at least the following infonnation: (i) The code number designating the ISC design type, the name and address or symbol of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture and the country authorizing the a_llocation of the mark as specified in paragraph (a) of this section; That is 31HA1/M number /Date/USA. The current M numbers for Mauser USA LLC factories producing the bottles are M4118 (MtVernon), M4119 (Anniston), M4601 (Houston), and M4602 (Rancho Cucamonga). Please feel free to contact me if we can provide any additional infonnation or assistance. -~· .fi f) ifJQ Christo~ar MAUSER USA llC 35 C Cotten; Lana East Bn.mswic:k, NJ 08816 USA Managing Dlrectcr Hans-Peter Schaeffer Winftfed Klar Rag!slen!KI Sellt50321 Bn:!ehl Local CQurt: Cologne Regla!rafion HBB 58469 info.ua@mausergroup.Cilm www.mausergroup.et~m <<>> SCHUTZ Schuetz Container Systems Inc. 200 Aspen Hill Road North Branch, NJ 08876 March 14, 2012 To: ICS Re: Testing of inner bottles for IBCs To Whom It May Concern: The inter receptacles for IBCs or replacement bottles you purchase from us are visually inspected for defects prior to valve installations. After valve installation the bottles are leakproofness tested in accordance with Sec. 178.813 to insure the bottom sea,m and valve are intact and leak free, capped and security sealed. In addition, the bottles are molded with the marks required by 49 CFR 178.703 (b) (6) (i). Sincerely, Tatiana Smoleeva Technical Service Phone: 908-526-6161 x 1126 - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 21714