FMCSR 180.352(e) – IBC Retest Date Marking Q&A

No. Across our inspection records, 0 out of 12 citations for 180.352(e) resulted in an out-of-service order—a 0.0% OOS rate. This code is not OOS-eligible under FMCSA rules. Compare that to the all-FMCSR average OOS rate of 31.4%, and you can see this violation is treated as a warning-level compliance issue, not an immediate safety shutdown. You can continue operating legally while you address the marking issue.

180.352(e) is far less serious than other hazmat handling codes. Our database shows it ranks #2132 of 3,036 FMCSR codes by enforcement volume, with only 12 all-time citations. Peer codes in the hazmat category tell the story: placarding violations (177.817(a)) generate 2,274 citations with 75.1% OOS rates; general loading/unloading hazmat (177.834A-HMC) has 3,954 citations with 99.2% OOS rates. IBC retest date marking is a documentation/marking issue, not an operational hazard like improper loading or missing placards.

1. Verify your IBC marking accuracy. Check that the retest date is clearly visible and current on each intermediate bulk container. 2. Review your hazmat shipping documentation. In our last 90 days of data, 180.352(e) appeared with missing/inadequate shipping papers in one inspection—ensure all paperwork matches your cargo. 3. Inspect vehicle placarding and emergency equipment. Co-occurring violations in the same inspections included placard issues and fire extinguisher defects. 4. Document the correction. Keep records of when you updated the markings; FMCSA may allow re-inspection to clear the violation.

Yes. The DataQs (Driver Record Improvement Program) process allows drivers and carriers to challenge safety violations. For 180.352(e)—a marking and documentation issue—contestability depends on whether the violation was recorded in error or if you can provide proof the container was properly marked at the time of inspection. Documentation violations are easier to contest than equipment defects. Submit your DataQs challenge within 30 days of the citation with photo evidence or maintenance records showing compliance. FMCSA reviews contestations for factual accuracy.

No. Our monthly trend data shows only 4 citations in the last 12 months, with 2 in August 2025 and 1 each in February and March 2026. The last 90 days saw just 2 citations. This code is rarely enforced—it sits at the bottom of the enforcement spectrum. For context, the all-time total is only 12 citations since tracking began. This low volume suggests enforcement focuses on active hazmat operations risks rather than marking technicalities.

In the last 180 days, Texas accounts for 2 citations with a 0.0% out-of-service rate. Data from other states is minimal or absent in our recent records. This suggests 180.352(e) enforcement is geographically sparse and not concentrated in any single jurisdiction. Hazmat transport corridors and distribution hubs may see slightly higher enforcement, but the overall citation volume is too low to identify a clear state-by-state pattern.

Our records show citations spread across specialized carriers: HYDRO PLUS LLC and EAGLE TECH LLC each had 2 citations; nine other carriers had 1 each, including water service, chemical, and oil transport companies. No single carrier dominates the violation pattern. All cited carriers operate hazmat—primarily liquids and chemicals requiring IBC containers. If you haul hazmat in IBCs, the risk exists regardless of company size, but the overall citation rate remains very low.

Under FMCSA's CSA system, both. The violation is recorded in the carrier's BASIC category and reflects on the company's safety profile. However, if you were the driver operating the vehicle, it also appears on your driving record as part of the inspection chain. Repeat violations across your career may affect your PSP (Pre-Season Program) status or employment. The carrier carries the primary compliance responsibility for IBC maintenance and marking standards, but drivers are expected to verify hazmat container compliance before transport.