{"operation":"document","citation":"CHI-13-001","title":"Lawrence W. Bierlein — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2013-08-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CHI-13-001 concerning 178.813, 180.352.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-chi-13-001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-chi-13-001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-chi-13-001","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Hazmat/ChiefCounsel/CHI-13-001.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.,\nPipeline and Hazardous\nPHC-10, Room E26-33l\nMaterials Safety Administration\nOffice of\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nChief Counsel\nPhone: (202)366-4400\nFax: (202) 366-7041\nEmail: joe.solomey@dot.gov\nHazardous Materials Safety Law\nDivision\nLETTER OF INTERPRETATION\nAugust 16, 2013\nLawrence W. Bierlein, Esq.\n1101 30t Street NW\nSuite 500\nWashington DC 20007\nReference No.: CHI-13-001\nDear Mr. Bierlein:\nOn May 16, 2012, PHMSA issued PHMSA Interpretation No. 12-0056 (Interpretation) of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) related to the repair of\nthought it necessary to clarify PHMSA's interpretation of the HMR as it relates to the repair of\nIBCs. More specifically, this letter will cover the requirement to test, inspect, and durably mark\ndamaged IBCs that have been repaired.\nAs stated in § 180.352(d)(1), damaged IBCs may be repaired and the inner receptacles of\ncomposite packagings may be replaced and returned to service provided: (i) The repaired IBC\nconforms to the original design type, is capable of withstanding the applicable design\nqualification tests, and is retested and inspected in accordance with the applicable requirements\nof this section; (i) an IBC intended to contain liquids or solids that are loaded or discharged\nunder pressure is subjected to a leakproofness test as specified in § 178.813 of this subchapter\nand is marked with the date of the test; and (iii) the IBC is subjected to the internal and external\ninspection requirements as specified in § 180.352(b).\nIn the interpretation 12-0056, PHMSA clarified that the HMR allow a company that repairs IBCs\nto rely on the leakproofness test and internal visual inspection of a replacement inner receptacle\nconducted by a third party. PHMSA also affirmed that the company relying on the third party\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\ntesting and inspection would need evidence to establish that the leakproofness test and internal\nvisual inspection was performed in accordance with § 178.813 and the internal visual inspection\nwas performed before the IBC is filled and offered for transportation (§ 180.352(g)).\nFurthermore, the letter stated that this evidence should be from the third party that performed the\ntests and inspections and identify the company as able to rely on that testing for the purposes of\nthe repair.\nIt is the responsibility of the person that repairs the IBC to make sure these requirements are met\nbefore the IBC is filled and placed into transportation in commerce. If an inspector shows up at\na company's facility and sees that it conducts repairs of composite IBCs by replacing the rigid\ninner receptacle, the company must provide evidence of leakproofness tests and internal visual\ninspections. If the testing and inspections are done on-site, this is generally done at the\ndiscretion of the inspector through a demonstration of the company's testing or inspection\nprocedures. If the company relies on a third party to conduct the required testing and\ninspections, then the company must provide evidence of its reasonable and mutually\nacknowledged reliance.\nIn your correspondence dated August 24, 2012, you cited an email between William Schoonover,\nmanufacturer. Furthermore, you proposed that this contradicts and therefore invalidates (at least\nin part) the Interpretation issued just three months earlier.\nWe would like to clarify that Mr. Schoonover correctly expressed the Agency position that a\nletter individually addressed to a company is not needed. However, this does not contradict the\nvisual inspection in the circumstances described in the Interpretation is obligated to provide\nMr. Schoonover in the exchange you cited contradicts the Agency guidance set forth in PHMSA\nInterpretation No. 12-0056.\nOnce a company replaces the rigid inner receptacle of a composite IBC, according to the HMR,\nit has conducted a repair. This triggers the requirement for a leakproofness test and an internal\nvisual inspection as specified in §180.352(d)(1) on the rigid inner receptacle of a composite\nIBC. Additionally, in accordance with §180.352(d)(1)(iv), the person performing the tests must\ndurably mark the month and year of the testing and inspections after the repair. If the inner\nbottle has been tested, inspected, and marked by a third party, the date durably marked must also\nreflect the date of repair. If the inner bottle is marked with the month and year prior to the date\nof repair, it would need to be re-tested in accordance with §180.352(d)(1).\nTherefore, in response to your correspondence dated August 24, 2012, I am issuing this letter as\na clarification and affirmation of PHMSA Interpretation No. 12-0056.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n3\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have any additional\nquestions.\nSincerely,\nJosh Solemy,\nJoseph Solomey,\nSenior Assistant Chief Counsel for\nHazardous Materials Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":4942}