49 C.F.R. 173.28 - Reuse, reconditioning and remanufacture of packagings

Cite as49 C.F.R. 173.28
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
27 practice notes
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 16, 2006
    • August 16, 2006
    ...are different in the final rule than in the supplemental notice approach. In particular, the final regulations include an exception from 49 CFR 173.28(b)(2), which requires leakproofness testing every time a non-bulk packaging is refilled. The final regulations specify that this leakproofne......
  • Part III
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 13, 2007
    • April 13, 2007
    ...materials that have previously contained explosives provided that such re-use is performed in accordance with DOT regulations at 49 CFR 173.28 (Sec. The Petition On July 29, 2002, OSHA received a petition (the Petition) from the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and the Sporting Arms ......
  • Pesticide programs: Pesticide container and containment standards,
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 16, 2006
    • August 16, 2006
    ...are different in the final rule than in the supplemental notice approach. In particular, the final regulations include an exception from 49 CFR 173.28(b)(2), which requires leakproofness testing every time a non-bulk packaging is refilled. The final regulations specify that this leakproofne......
  • Separate Parts In This Issue Part III Labor Department, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 13, 2007
    • April 13, 2007
    ...materials that have previously contained explosives provided that such re-use is performed in accordance with DOT regulations at 49 CFR 173.28 (Sec. The Petition On July 29, 2002, OSHA received a petition (the Petition) from the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and the Sporting Arms ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 cases
  • Tekavec v. Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., No. 5:97 CV 0571.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • June 30, 1998
    ...655 N.E.2d 440. 2. Violation of Statutory Duties Tekavec also alleges that Van Waters & Rogers violated statutory duties imposed by 49 C.F.R. § 173.28 and 49 C.F.R. § 173.503 pertaining to the required thickness of the drum walls. However, for the reasons that follow the Court holds tha......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT