{"operation":"document","citation":"78 FR 45880","title":"Hazardous Materials: Approval and Communication Requirements for the Safe Transportation of Air Bag Inflators, Air Bag Modules, and Seat-Belt Pretensioners (RRR)","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-07-30","effective_on":"2013-08-29","summary":"The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations applicable to air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. The revisions incorporate the provisions of two special permits into the regulations. In addition, PHMSA is amending the current approval and documentation requirements for a material classified as a UN3268 air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner. These revisions are intended to reduce the regulatory burden on the automotive industry and facilitate commerce, while continuing to maintain an equivalent level of safety.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2013-18263.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2013-18263.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2013-18263","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/07/30/2013-18263/hazardous-materials-approval-and-communication-requirements-for-the-safe-transportation-of-air-bag","body":"Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013) [Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 45880-45893] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2013-18263] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 172 and 173 [Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0201 (HM-254)] RIN 2137-AE62 Hazardous Materials: Approval and Communication Requirements for the Safe Transportation of Air Bag Inflators, Air Bag Modules, and Seat-Belt Pretensioners (RRR) AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations applicable to air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. The revisions incorporate the provisions of two special permits into the regulations. In addition, PHMSA is amending the current approval and documentation requirements for a material classified as a UN3268 air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner. These revisions are intended to reduce the regulatory burden on the automotive industry and facilitate commerce, while continuing to maintain an equivalent level of safety. DATES: Effective date: August 29, 2013. Voluntary compliance date: PHMSA is authorizing voluntary compliance beginning July 30, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Nickels, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, telephone (202) 366-8553. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background III. Amendments Adopted in Final Rule IV. Comments Submitted Regarding the NPRM and PHMSA's Response to Those Comments V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking B. Executive Order 13610, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 12866, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures C. Executive Order 13132 D. Executive Order 13175 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 I. Environmental Assessment J. Privacy Act K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act List of Subjects I. Executive Summary In this final rule, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) applicable to the transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners in Sec. 173.166. This rulemaking is responsive to one petition for rulemaking submitted by an industry representative: P-1523, asking that PHMSA remove unnecessary burdens on the industry that do not advance safety. Further, this final rule is incorporating into the HMR the provisions of two widely used and longstanding special permits with established safety records (DOT-SP 12332 and DOT-SP 13996). These revisions are intended to reduce the regulatory burden on the automotive industry and facilitate commerce, while continuing to maintain an equivalent level of safety. [[Page 45881]] This rulemaking specifically finalizes revisions to five regulatory initiatives. The first initiative modifies the approval process and documentation requirements associated with classifying air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. The second initiative incorporates provisions of DOT-SP 12332 into the HMR by excepting Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners assigned to UN3268 from the requirement to provide the EX number on the shipping paper. The third initiative is a simple clarification that a safety restraint device that is installed in a vehicle or vehicle component is not subject to the HMR. The fourth initiative incorporates provisions of DOT-SP 13996 into the HMR by authorizing the use of non-DOT specification, reusable containers manufactured from high-strength plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling devices, for transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. The fifth initiative permits several additional types of packaging to maintain alignment with the 17th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations. The costs and benefits of the amended regulations are dependent on the level of preexisting compliance with the two special permits and the overall effectiveness of the amended regulations (e.g., flexibility provided when incorporating portions or whole special permits). Additionally, we believe that this rulemaking will benefit the automobile industry because it will reduce the burden in how air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners are authorized for shipment by eliminating the necessity to submit approval applications to PHMSA, and thus provide a significant cost savings. The costs associated with the rule are negligible due to minor revisions to the recordkeeping requirements. DOT explosives test labs that test and examine air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners will be required to provide the manufacturer a detailed report on each tested design. The DOT explosives test labs already provide manufacturers with test reports for classification purposes, but the amended reporting requirements will require minimal additions to the report (e.g., unique product identifier, etc.). Outside of this marginal impact, this rulemaking provides numerous benefits. PHMSA is currently spending/expending an estimated $82,800 per year to process and review special permits and approvals associated with Class 9 airbags and seat-belt pretensioners. Further, industry incurs an estimated $165,000 per year to prepare and submit applications for special permits and approvals, and $890,000 per year to provide the EX numbers on shipping papers. Combined, these costs total $1,137,800 per year. Since the objective of the rule is to eliminate these costs, the benefits that can be achieved are estimated to be $1,137,800 per year. However, notwithstanding the data above, because of the difficulty of and uncertainty associated with forecasting industry effects into the far future, we assumed a 10-year timeframe to outline, quantify, and monetize the costs and benefits of the rulemaking and to demonstrate the net effects of the rulemaking. The net benefits of the rule are calculated by subtracting the costs from the benefits. Since the costs are assumed to be negligible, the first-year net benefits are estimated to be $1.14 million. Based upon the market analysis presented in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA), it's assumed these benefits will grow at an annual average rate of 5 percent.\\1\\ Calculating the present value of this net benefit over ten years produces an estimated benefit of between ten and twelve million dollars, using the discount rates of 7 percent and 3 percent, respectively. A summary of the expected annualized costs and benefits is provided in the table below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ In its recent report, ``Global Automotive Airbag Market 2011-2015,'' TechNavio is forecasting that the global airbag market will grow at a compounded annual average annual growth rate of 11.54 percent. Given the maturity of the airbag market in the United States, we believe the growth rate in the U.S. market will be less than the global growth rate and therefore assumed 5 percent for the U.S. market. Annualized benefit (in 2013 $)......... $1.14 million. Annualized Cost (in 2013 $)............ $0 (negligible). Benefit-Cost Ratio..................... All benefits. 10-Year Benefits at 7% and 3% Discount $10-12 million. Rates. With this in mind, PHMSA has concluded that the aggregate benefits justify the final rule. For additional information and review of the analysis underlying these estimates, as well as possible approaches to reduce the costs of this rule while maintaining or increasing the benefits, please review the RIA available at the public docket for this rulemaking. II. Background The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 26, 2012 [77 FR 17394] under Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0201 (HM-254) to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners in Sec. 173.166. This NPRM was part of an ongoing review by PHMSA to identify widely used and longstanding special permits with established safety records for adoption into HMR. The numbers of the special permits considered for incorporation in the NPRM were DOT-SP: 12332 and 13996. PHMSA identified these special permits as implementing operational techniques that achieve a safety level that corresponds to or exceeds the safety level required under the HMR. In addition, this rulemaking addresses petition for rulemaking P-1523, dated June 24, 2008 (P-1523) and two addendums submitted on February 26, 2009 and June 14, 2011 by the North American Automotive Hazmat Action Committee (NAAHAC). NAAHAC represents numerous automobile manufacturers and component suppliers located in North America as well as in Asia and Europe. NAAHAC's petition requested revisions to requirements in the HMR applicable to safety restraint systems (e.g., air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners). NAAHAC suggested that subjecting Class 9, UN3268 safety restraint systems to the EX approval process in accordance with Sec. 173.56 imposed an unnecessary burden on the industry that does not advance safety. Therefore, NAAHAC requested that PHMSA remove the requirement for manufacturers to apply for and receive an EX approval number for the shipment of Class 9, UN3268 safety restraint systems. In addition, NAAHAC suggested that PHMSA incorporate the following long-standing special permits into the HMR: DOT-SP 12332--This special permit provides relief from Sec. 173.166(c) in that it allows the devices to be shipped without listing the EX-approval numbers or product names on the shipping papers, and from Sec. 173.166(e) in that an alternative packaging method is authorized. The special permit has been in effect since 2000, and has been utilized by more than 2,100 grantees with no known safety problems. A review of the Hazardous Materials Incident Data library did not reveal any incidents related to this special permit since the date of its issuance. This special permit applies to Class 9, UN3268 materials that are packaged using either of the two following methods: a. Non-specification steel drums with a wall and lid thickness not less than 20 gauge. The lid must be securely affixed [[Page 45882]] with a lever-locking or bolted-ring assembly. The threaded bung closure in the top of the drum must be removed prior to shipment and the bung opening covered with waterproof plastic tape or a waterproof soft plastic cap that must easily provide ventilation of the drum contents in the event of a fire. The drum may be filled with any combination of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioner devices to a capacity not greater than fifty (50) percent of the drum's total volume; inner packagings are not necessary; or b. Outer packagings that are UN Standard 4H2 solid plastic boxes or non-specification rugged reusable plastic containers with either trays or cushioning material in the containers to prevent movement of articles during transportation. Inner packagings are static-resistant plastic bags or trays. DOT-SP 13996--This special permit provides relief from Sec. 173.166(e)(4) in that it authorizes the transportation, under certain conditions, of Class 9, UN3268 air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners in reusable containers manufactured from high-strength plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling devices. The special permit has been in effect since 2005, and has been utilized by 31 grantees with no known safety problems. A review of the Hazardous Materials Incident Data library did not reveal any incidents related to this special permit since the date of its issuance. As stated above, in addition to NAAHAC's petition suggesting that subjecting Class 9, UN3268 safety restraint systems to the EX approval process in accordance with Sec. 173.56 imposes an unnecessary burden on the industry that does not advance safety, the petition also suggested that PHMSA incorporate these two long-standing special permits into the HMR. PHMSA agrees with the petition and proposed to amend the HMR to incorporate certain requirements based on these two special permits issued under 49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B (Sec. Sec. 107.101 to 107.127). III. Amendments Adopted in Final Rule PHMSA agrees with the petitioner that requiring documentation for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners to be submitted to PHMSA and assigned an EX Number is unnecessarily burdensome. PHMSA believes that eliminating this requirement will not adversely affect safety since the devices will still continue to be sent to the explosive test labs for classification purposes and assigned a unique product identifier by the lab, but the documentation will no longer be forwarded to PHMSA and issued an EX Number (please see A. Approval Process below for further discussion). Further, PHMSA agrees that incorporating the terms of DOT-SP 12332 and DOT-SP 13996 into the HMR will promote compliance and safety. As a result, PHMSA proposed to revise Sec. 173.166 to address the concerns highlighted in NAAHAC's petition. PHMSA believed that changes proposed by the NPRM promoted the safe transportation of Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners, while significantly reducing the financial burden on the overall automotive industry (and the device manufacturers specifically) for shipping these devices. The amendments adopted by this final rule are summarized below. A. Approval Process In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to allow manufacturers of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners to receive a classification of Class 9 (UN3268) for new designs that pass Test series 6(c) of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, which is currently required by Special Provision 160. As was proposed, an air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner would be classed as Class 9 (UN3268) if the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is examined and successfully tested by a person or agency (authorized testing agency) who is authorized by the Associate Administrator to perform such examination and testing of explosives under 173.56(b)(1). As was proposed in the NPRM, persons who test and examine air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners would be required to provide a detailed report on each tested design to the manufacturer. Key components of the report include a description of the design; explanation of the tests performed and results; and a recommended classification for tested designs. The manufacturer must retain the report for as long as the design is in production and for 15 years thereafter. Additionally, the manufacturer must make the report available to Department officials upon request. This record retention requirement ensures that a detailed test report of each air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is maintained and available for the useful life of the device. These records may be used to verify the accuracy and validity of the tests and classification recommendation. In summary, the proposed NPRM amendments provided manufacturers of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners with the option to utilize new designs that are proven to meet the criteria of a Class 9 through established test criteria, without receiving an EX approval from PHMSA. The result would be a significant cost savings and no change in the level of safety. Additionally, we proposed to permit manufacturers to continue to receive EX approval by submitting their designs for examination and testing in accordance with Sec. 173.56(b) if they so choose. If an air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner fails Test series 6(c) of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, as provided by Special Provision 160, then the device must continue to be approved by PHMSA in accordance with the explosive examination, classification, and approval process in Sec. 173.56(b). B. Shipping Papers PHMSA proposed in the NPRM to except Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners assigned to UN3268 from the requirement to provide the EX number on the shipping paper. As suggested by NAAHAC, the documentation requirement imposes a cost burden, but does not provide a safety benefit. C. Safety Restraint Systems Installed in Vehicles In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to clarify that a safety restraint device that is installed in a vehicle or vehicle component is not subject to the HMR. This change made it clear that the exception will continue to apply to Class 9, UN3268 materials that are not approved by the Associate Administrator. D. Packaging In the NPRM, PHMSA also proposed to authorize the use of non-DOT specification, reusable containers manufactured from high strength plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling devices, for transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. This change would incorporate the provisions of Special Permit DOT-SP 13996 into the HMR. Special Permit DOT-SP 13996 allows the specified packaging to be used for transportation from the manufacturing facility to an intermediate handling location; from an intermediate handling location to the assembly facility; from the assembly facility to an intermediate handling location; from the intermediate handling location back to the manufacturing facility; or from the [[Page 45883]] assembly facility directly to the manufacturer with no intermediate facility involved. As proposed in the NPRM, there would be no limit on the use of the authorized packaging to transportation between specific destinations. However, no modifications or changes may be made to the original package, and the transportation must be made by private or contract carrier. By prohibiting modifications to the original package, this would ensure that adequate packaging and handling considerations are maintained. In the NPRM, PHMSA also proposed to authorize additional packaging alternatives for air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners that have been removed from, or were intended to be used in, a motor vehicle that meets the requirements for use in the United States. The proposed change would incorporate the provisions of Special Permit DOT-SP 12332 into the HMR. In accordance with the special permit, this additional packaging option would be limited to devices that are offered for transportation and transported domestically by highway. E. Shipments for Recycling/Reuse In the NPRM, we did not propose any changes to the requirements for shipping air bag modules or seat-belt pretensioners for recycling. In the current HMR, when offered for domestic transportation by highway, rail freight, cargo vessel or cargo aircraft, a serviceable air bag module or seat-belt pretensioner removed from a motor vehicle that was manufactured as required for use in the U.S. may be offered for transportation and transported without compliance with the shipping paper requirement prescribed in Sec. 173.166(c), but the word ``Recycled'' must be entered on the shipping paper immediately after the basic description prescribed in Sec. 172.202. However, we believed that the word ``Reuse'' might be a more appropriate description for the actual action that is taking place. We requested comments regarding a potential change from the word ``Recycled'' to ``Reuse'' that would appear on shipping papers in accordance with an altered Sec. 173.166(d)(4). F. Additional Packaging Authorizations To maintain alignment of the HMR with international requirements, in the NPRM, we proposed to incorporate changes based on the Seventeenth revised edition of the UN Model Regulations. Specifically, in addition to the packagings authorized currently in Sec. 173.166(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3), we proposed to permit 1N2 and 1D drums, 3B2 jerricans, and 4A, 4B, 4N, and 4H1 boxes. IV. Comments Submitted Regarding the NPRM and PHMSA's Response to Those Comments In response to PHMSA's March 26, 2012 NPRM (77 FR 17394), PHMSA received comments from seven organizations, associations, and individuals. While the majority of commenters supported the proposals in the NPRM, some commenters had suggestions for additional revisions to the regulatory text. The comments, as submitted to this docket, may be accessed via http://www.regulations.gov and were submitted by the following entities: (1) Hapag-Lloyd America; PHMSA-2010-0201-0002. (2) United Parcel Service (UPS); PHMSA-2010-0201-0003. (3) International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Association (IVODGA); PHMSA-2010-0201-0004. (4) North American Automotive Hazardous Materials Action Committee (NAAHAC); PHMSA-2010-0201-0005. (5) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); PHMSA-2010-0201- 0006. (6) National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA); PHMSA-2010- 0201-0007. (7) Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA); PHMSA-2010-0201-0008. The two special permits addressed in this final rule that authorize the transportation in commerce of certain air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners under the HMR were initially issued to members of industry associations or similar organizations. They have well established safety records, and therefore PHMSA has determined that they are excellent candidates for incorporation into the HMR. Incorporating these special permits into the HMR will eliminate the need for over 2,100 current grantees to reapply for the renewal of two special permits every four years and for PHMSA to process the renewal applications, thereby eliminating a significant paperwork burden both on industry and the government. Below is a discussion of comments we received regarding specific provisions proposed in the NPRM, and PHMSA's position regarding those comments. As discussed above, commenters were supportive of this rulemaking, and those comments within the scope of this rulemaking are discussed below. A. Comments on Paragraph (b) of Sec. 173.166 Paragraph (b) of Sec. 173.166 provides for the classification requirements of an air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to allow manufacturers of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners to receive a classification of Class 9 (UN3268) to new designs that pass Test series 6(c) of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria--currently required by Special Provision 160. We also proposed that, an air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner may be classed as Class 9 (UN3268) if the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is examined and successfully tested by a person or agency (authorized testing agency) who is authorized by the Associate Administrator to perform such examination and testing of explosives under 173.56(b)(1). PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed amendments because these changes would simplify the classification process. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (b). One commenter suggested: We would point out that at the present time there are air bag inflator designs which utilize a flammable gas mixture, and while these devices have tested out of Class 1 they have never been included in Class 9/UN3268. They have, instead, been classified as Class/Division 2.1. While we believe it would certainly be appropriate to allow flammable gas mixtures to be classed as 1.4G if the devices did not meet the criteria for exclusion from Class 1, we do not feel that they should be included in Class 9 as they meet the characteristics of a flammable gas. We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (b)(1) to reflect this in this final rule. Another commenter suggested: ``We ask that the reference to `maximum parameters of each design' continue to be included in the regulation, as it is key to understanding that the approvals issued are not specific to individual part numbers but rather to design types.'' We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in both paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) to reflect this in this final rule. Regarding Sec. 173.166(b)(2), one commenter suggested: We would ask the complete reference to 173.56(b)(1) be included rather than just to 173.56. This will match the similar reference contained in paragraph (b)(1) above. We are requesting this so that all parties who read both portions of the regulations are clearly pointed to 173.56(b)(1) which specifies those agencies authorized by the DOT, and particularly that they are US citizens. [[Page 45884]] We agree with the commenter's point and revised the language in paragraph (b)(2) to reflect this in this final rule. B. Comments on Paragraph (c) of Sec. 173.166 Paragraph (c) of Sec. 173.166 provides for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners assigned to UN3268 to be excepted from the requirement to provide the EX number on the shipping paper. As suggested by the original NAAHAC petition, the documentation requirement imposes a cost burden, but does not provide a safety benefit. PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed amendments because these changes would simplify the hazard communication process. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (c). One commenter suggested: ``We find the wording of this paragraph extremely confusing, and we would ask that the language be made clearer to ensure compliance.'' Another commenter suggested that: ``PHMSA may simply be able to eliminate the proposed 173.166(c)(1) and create a new 173.166(c) by adapting the language found in the proposed 173.166(c)(2).'' After reviewing the regulatory text from the NPRM, we agree partially with the commenters' issue and revised the language in paragraph (c) to reflect this in this final rule. C. Comments on Paragraph (d) of Sec. 173.166 Paragraph (d) of Sec. 173.166 provides for certain exceptions for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to clarify that a safety restraint device that is installed in a vehicle or vehicle component is not subject to the HMR. PHMSA determined that this change makes it clear that the exception will continue to apply to Class 9, UN3268 materials that are not approved by the Associate Administrator. PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed amendments because these changes would simplify the exceptions provided. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (d). Regarding Sec. 173.166(d)(1), one commenter suggested: We are asking for the inclusion of the term `inflator' in the exceptions so as to harmonize with the 17th Revised Edition of the Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, UN Model Regulations, Special Provision 289. We also feel that it is important to clarify that in order to utilize the exception offered in this paragraph in the U.S., the devices must have been classified as Class 9 per the 49 CFR. This is clear for the 1.4G's but not for the Class 9's. Additionally, we commend the DOT for clarifying that this relief applies to both the Class 9 and 1.4G devices. We agree with the commenters points and revised the language in paragraph (d)(1) to reflect this in this final rule. Regarding Sec. 173.166(d)(2), one commenter suggested: ``During previous discussions with PHMSA in the summer of 2011, this topic was addressed informally and the industry has been operating within this policy since that time. We strongly feel that placing this into the regulation significantly enhances understanding and compliance.'' After reviewing the language provided, we agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (d)(2) to reflect this in this final rule. Regarding Sec. 173.166(d)(4), one commenter suggested: This paragraph is the basis of the special permit DOT-SP 12332, which expanded upon this exception and offered additional packaging options. Both this paragraph and the areas where DOT-SP 12332 were incorporated into the regulation should address both disposal and recycling, not just recycling. This should apply to inflators, modules and pretensioners of either Class 9 or 1.4G. We agree with the commenter's point and revised the language in paragraph (d)(4) to reflect this in this final rule. Also, the same commenter suggested: `We do not feel that the terms `Reuse' or `Reused' should be substituted for ``Recycle'' or ``Recycled''. The Automotive Safety Council (formerly Automotive Occupant Restraints Council--AORC) has gone on record many times against the reuse of airbags.'' We appreciate the feedback since we asked the question in the NPRM regarding using the term ``reuse'' v. ``recycled,'' and we agree with the commenter and will not be revising the language in paragraph (d)(4) in this final rule. A commenter suggested: ``While we do feel it is helpful to have the word `Recycled' following the basic description when shipping to a recycling location, we hope that the requirement to have the word `waste' in association with the basic description will only come into play when required by 172.101(c)(9).'' We do agree with the commenter's point and note that while it doesn't affect the regulatory text in this final rule, shippers should use the word ``waste'' when required by Sec. 172.101(c)(9). Lastly, another commenter countered a previous point with: In addition to this possible streamlining of the text, PHMSA may also be able to simplify the requirements for the shipment of recycled Air bag inflators, Air bag modules and Seat belt pretensioners that are assigned to Class 9. The current proposal retains the requirement to include the word `Recycled' on the shipping paper immediately after the basic description. However, we submit there is no need for this additional text. The function of the word `Recycled' is presumably to explain the absence of the EX number from a shipping paper. But the very purpose of the simplified procedures for Class 9 Air bag inflators, Air bag modules and Seat belt pretensioners appears to accomplish the same goal. By proposing to eliminate the need for inclusion of the EX number on a shipping paper associated with a Class 9 shipment of these articles, PHMSA eliminates the need to distinguish recycled Air bag inflators, Air bag modules and Seat belt pretensioners from those sent in new condition. We believe that with the changes proposed in Docket HM- 254, there is no value in requiring the word `Recycled' to appear on the shipping paper. It appears that PHMSA could simply delete the text of Sec. 173.166(d)(4), and we respectfully requests that PHMSA consider this change. While we do appreciate the feedback regarding the recycling provisions, we disagree on the statement that they provide no further value to the HMR; and, therefore we will not be further revising the language in paragraph (d)(4) in this final rule. D. Comments on Paragraph (e) of Sec. 173.166 Paragraph (e) of Sec. 173.166 permits different types of packagings for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to authorize the use of non- DOT specification, reusable containers manufactured from high strength plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling devices, for transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. PHMSA also proposed to authorize additional packaging alternatives for air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners that have been removed from, or were intended to be used in, a motor vehicle that meets the requirements for use in the United States. PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed amendments because these changes would expand the options for shipping these products. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (e). Regarding the introductory text of Sec. 173.166(e), one commenter suggested: During a meeting in 2011 with PHMSA, the Supplier Regulatory Workgroup of NAAHAC [[Page 45885]] explained that several of our OEMs (customers), have had difficulty with this paragraph in the past. The current wording of the regulation and the PHMSA's proposed wording do not clearly differentiate between the specification packagings in paragraphs 173.166(e)(1), (2) and (3) and the non-specification packagings in (4). With the changes suggested here any confusion would be eliminated. We are in complete agreement with the last sentence of this paragraph, as we believe it brings clarification to the issue of packaging dependent classifications. After reviewing the introductory text to paragraph (e), we agree with the commenters point and revised the language to reflect this in this final rule. Regarding Sec. 173.166(e)(4)(i), one commenter suggested: ``The industry feels that the use of returnable packagings has proven quite safe over the many years of shipping Class 9/UN3268 products, and that there should be no limitations to the use of returnables that meet the performance criteria called out in 173.166(e)(4)(A)-(C).'' While we understand the commenter's point of view, after reviewing the issue, we have determined to keep the language as is in this final rule. Regarding Sec. 173.166(e)(4)(ii), one commenter suggested: DOT-SP 13996 allowed for this type of activity--it was designed to accommodate both returns of production shipments from the OEM's to the supplier and for sequencers (intermediate handlers) to receive/open/store/re-pack and ship parts on to the customer. Without the change suggested here, or something similar, this new regulation is actually more restrictive than DOT-SP 13996. We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) to reflect this in this final rule. Regarding Sec. 173.166(e)(5), one commenter suggested: Since expiration dates for EX approvals are not required, it is unclear why specific approvals are being targeted for what we assume to be re-testing. In order for products to be shipped in packagings previously approved by the Associate Administrator, neither the products nor the packagings may be changed. The testing previously performed and the results would, therefore, not have changed. We strongly disagree with this restriction, and ask for its removal. While we understand the commenters viewpoint, the intent of paragraph (e)(5) was not to single out specific approvals for re- testing but to continue to permit previously approved air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners to remain in circulation. However, we do recognize the confusion that an end-date may cause industry and we agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (e)(5) to reflect this in this final rule. Regarding Sec. 173.166(e)(6), one commenter suggested: As noted above, DOT-SP 12332 was intended to be an expansion of the packaging methods allowed for disposal or recycling. We would ask that a clear reference to both be included. Additionally, DOT-SP 12332 does not include 1.4G product, so we have excluded the 1.4G/ UN0431 product here as well. We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (e)(6) to reflect this in this final rule. Regarding Sec. 173.166(e)(6)(i), one commenter suggested: When DOT-12332 was originally issued, the inclusion of the steel drum packaging option was based on testing performed in steel drums with a void in the top of the drum--no inner packagings, no cushioning. The void area, in combination with the lid ventilation, is intended to provide space for the appropriate venting of gases in the case of a fire without rupture of the drum. Obviously this would allow for movement of the devices inside the drum if there were rough handling, but the safety benefit of the void far outweighs concerns about movement of devices. Movement of devices inside a steel drum would not constitute a safety hazard--not regarding spillage or inadvertent operation. We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (e)(6)(i) to reflect this in this final rule. E. Comments on Paragraph (g) of Sec. 173.166 Paragraph (g) of Sec. 173.166 provides the recordkeeping requirements for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat- belt pretensioners. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to require record retention requirement to ensure that a detailed test report of each air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is maintained and available for the useful life of the device. As such, these records would be used to verify the accuracy and validity of the tests and classification recommendation. PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed amendments because these changes would allow for better accountability of tracking test records. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (g). Regarding Sec. 173.166(g), one commenter suggested: ``While we see the need for the authorized testing agency to maintain test reports for a considerable period of time after testing, we feel it should be the manufacturer's responsibility to keep track of the duration of manufacture of a design type and maintain the test report for 15 years beyond manufacture.'' We agree with the commenters point in that a revision is needed to more clearly articulate a timeline for each stakeholder's recordkeeping requirements, and revised the language in paragraph (g) to reflect this in this final rule. F. Additional Comments Outside of Sec. 173.166 PHMSA also received some comments that did not directly pertain to the proposed regulatory text from the NPRM; however, is relevant to the discussion of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners. While the majority of commenters supported the proposals in the NPRM, some commenters had suggestions for new regulatory text not proposed in the NPRM. Possible Revision to Sec. 171.23(b)(2) One commenter suggested: To ensure that the exception from including the EX number on the shipping paper for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seatbelt pretensioners is crystal clear for international shipments, we recommend revising Sec. 171.23(b)(2) to add the following statement at the end of the paragraph: This requirement does not apply to Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seatbelt pretensioners. While we do understand the commenters point of view and also strive to be as clear as possible, we believe the current text in Sec. 171.23(b)(2) is sufficient. We believe that the current language directing shippers to Sec. 173.166(c) is still appropriate since Sec. 173.166(c)(1) discuss","truncated":true,"body_characters":98986}