{"operation":"document","citation":"11-0186","title":"Mr. Tae Kim — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2011-11-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"11-0186 concerning 173.168.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0186.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0186.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-11-0186","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/110186.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nNOV 0 3 2nn\n1200 New Jersey Ave. SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. Tae Kim\n9671 Irvine Center Drive\nKoll Center II - Building 6\nIrvine, CA 92618\nReference No.: 11-0186\nDear Mr. Kim:\nThis responds to your July 29, 2011 email requesting further clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the use and packaging of a\nchemical oxygen generator (COG). You request, based on the submission of new data, that\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) reconsider a\npreviously-issued letter of interpretation dated July 15,2011 [Ref. No. 11-0108]. Specifically,\nin light of this new data, you seek written confirmation that the manner in which you are\npreparing and packaging your insulated handheld COG classified as \"Oxygen generator,\nchemical (including when contained in portable breathing equipment (PEE), UN3356\" is in\ncompliance with the HMR.\nIn your original incoming email, you describe a scenario in which you purchased a COG\nwhose design has been approved by the Associate Administrator of PHMSA. In addition, in\nyour original incoming email, you included a document from the manufacturer of the\npackaging used to initially transport the COG which states the packaging that contains the\nCOG has been successfully tested in accordance with § 173.168. Subsequently, you modified\nthe COG by adding insulation to facilitate handheld use, and then repackaged the modified\nCOG in the originally-tested and approved packaging. However, you modified the approved\noriginal packaging configuration by removing some of the inner packaging to accommodate\nthe increased size of the modified insulated COG.\nThe new data and your rationale for requesting that PHMSA reconsider our opinion stated in\nour previous letter of interpretation [Ref. No. 11-0108] are paraphrased and addressed below.\nFor purposes of clarity, the insulated handheld COG and the packaging used to contain the\ninsulated handheld COG are addressed separately. It should be noted that PHMSA does not\nprovide approvals for COGs through letters of interpretation. The requirements for submitting\nan approval application are specified in § 107.709 of the HMR.\nThe insulated handheld COG used as a PBE\nIn your follow-up email concerning the COG, you include the original source control\nschematic drawing of the approved COG, a schematic drawing of the preliminary PBE\nassembly that you developed using the approved COG, and the original approval issued by\nPHMSA. You indicate that the COG is the main component of the PBE. You also state that\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nthe COG is not tampered with, nor modified. Based on this information, it is your\nunderstanding that your PBE assembly containing a COG should fall within the design\nparameters of the originally approved COG and, therefore, is not required to be re-submitted\nfor approval.\nProvided your PBE, that includes the COG as its' main component, does not modify the\noriginally approved COG, the COG would be permitted to be shipped under the original\napproval. Based on the original approval of the COG and the additional documentation you\nprovided in your emails.itis the opinion of this Office that the addition of insulation to the\nCOG would not merit the submittal of a new approval from the Associate Administrator of\nPHMSA in order to be shipped in compliance with the HMR.\nThe packaging containing the insulated handheld COG used as PBE\nIn your follow-up email, you also submit more specific details and data regarding the\npackaging design for your PBE assembly containing a COG and your rationale for requesting\nthat PHMSA reconsiders its' opinion that your packaging would need to be subjected to the\ntesting requirements specified in § 173.168.\nYou state it is your understanding that the COG itself, not the packaging, is tested for impact\nresistance as specified in § 173.168(b). Your understanding of this requirement is correct.\nProvided the COG is not modified from its approved design, the new COG design would not\nneed to undergo impact resistance as specified in § 173.168(b).\nYou also state it is your understanding that the performance requirements for the packaging\nspecified in § 173.168(d), including the flame penetration and thermal resistance tests are\nspecific to the outer packaging. Thus, the removal of the plastic insert, which does not tamper\nwith the outer packaging, does not affect the flame penetration and thermal resistance tests.\nYour understanding that the performance requirements for the packaging specified in\n§ 173.168(d) refer to the \"rigid outer packaging\" is correct. Provided the outer packaging\nremains unchanged with the removal of a plastic divider, the packaging does not require retesting\nin accordance with § 173.168(d).\nIn light of the additional data you provided, we are rescinding our previous letter of\nclarification. I hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further\nassistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nFrom: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nSent: Monday, August 08, 2011 3:23 PM\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: I nterpretation Letter\nFrom: Tae Kim [mailto:tkim@ppp.aero]\nSent: Monday, August 08, 2011 2:09 PM\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nSubject: RE: Interpretation Letter\nHi Alice,\nPlease confirm the request for reconsideration was forwarded to Mr. Foster.\nIf this is not the proper way to request a reconsideration of an interpretation request, please instruct me in the\ncorrect method.\nThank you,\nTae\nFrom: Tae Kim\nSent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:04 PM\nTo: 'Alice.Dodd@dot.gov'\nCc: Francois Vigier; Emmanuel Fantuzzi; Phil Bongiovanni\nSubject: RE: Interpretation Letter\nHi Alice,\nPlease forward this message to Mr. Foster.\nThank you,\nTae Kim\nSr. Project Engineer\n9671 Irvine Center Drive\nKoll Center II - Building 6\nIrvine, CA 92618\nPhone: 949-727-3844 ext 202\nE-mail: tkim@ppp.aero\nDear Mr. Foster,\nThank you for the letter dated, 7/15/11, (reference number 11-0108) whereby you informed us, based on\nthe documentation we provided, that the insulated COG no longer meets the original approval for the\nCOG, and that the modified packaging would need to be subjected to additional testing. The rationale\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nused in your determination has allowed us to gather more specific documentation that we believe should\naddress the issues you have raised. We kindly ask, based on the new data, which you provide us with a\nrevised determination.\n1. ...the modified insulated COG no longer meets the original approval for the COG and, thus, would\nrequire submittal for approval from the Associate Administrator of PHMSA in order to be in shipped in\ncompliance with the HMR.\nBased on your clarification, we are in a position to present additional documentation showing that our\n\"insulated COG\" falls under the classification of portable breathing equipment (PBE), and thus is\ncovered under the original approval:\n• The approval for the COG (B/E aerospace part number E72220) qualifies the \"Oxygen generator, chemical\n[(including when contained in associated equipment, e.q, passenger service units (PSUs), portable breathinq\nequipment (PBE), etc.)], UN3356\".\n• The B/E aerospace part number, E72220-10 is listed in our source control drawing P80381.\n• The drawing P80381 (B/E aerospace COG E72220) is identified, among other components, on our top\nassembly drawing P26029.\no The COG is the main component (oxygen source) for the portable breathing equipment (PBE).\no The COG is combined primarily with an outlet, a flow indicator and insulation to constitute a\nportable breathing equipment (PBE).\no The COG is not tampered with, nor is it modified.\no The shipping pin should not be removed before shipping; refer to note 2 on the assembly drawing,\nP26029.\n• Our top assembly P26029 describes the unit as portable breathing equipment (PBE), life Pak being a\n. commercial denomination only.\nConsequently, we are under the understanding that it should fall within the parameter of the original\nqualification.\nWe look forward to your review.\n2. Furthermore, it is the opinion of this Office that the packaging design you modified deviates significantly\nenough from the originally tested package design that the modified packaging would need to be\nsubjected to the testing requirements described in § 173.168 in order to be shipped in compliance with\nthe HMR.\nBased on your clarifications, we were able to review the requirements and better assess the\nimpact of our modification (removal ofone inner plastic divider). We came to the conclusion\nthat the packaging for our portable breathing equipment (PBE) meets the design requirements\nallowing to ship in compliance with HMR.\nIt is our understanding that generator itself COG -not the packaging- is tested for impact\nresistance.\n• § 173.168 Chemical oxygen generators.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n(b) Impact resistance. A chemical oxygen generator, without any packaging, must be\ncapable ofwithstanding a 1.8 meter drop onto a rigid, non-resilient, flat and horizontal\nsurface, in the position most likely to cause actuation or loss ofcontents.\nThe original COGs have successfully passed these tests, and are thus in compliance.\nIt is our understanding that the performance requirements for the packaging are as follows:\n• § 173.168 Chemical oxygen generators.\n(d) Packaging. A chemical oxygen generator and a chemical oxygen generator installed\nin equipment, (e.g., a PBE) must be placed in a rigid outer packaging that- (1)\nConforms to the requirements ofeither:\n(i) Part 178, subparts Land M, af this subchapter at the Packing Group lor II performance\nlevel.\n(i) The Flame Penetration Resistance Test specified in Appendix E to part 178 ofthis\nsubchapter.\n(ii) The Thermal Resistance Test specified in Appendix D to part 178 ofthis subchapter.\n• Both tests, flame penetration and thermal resistance test are tested on the outer packaging.\nThe removal of the plastic insert, which does not tamper with the outer packaging, does not\naffect in any way these flame penetration and thermal resistance testing. 0K\n• Many \"DOT qualified shipping containers\" only include the outer packaging (corrugated box wi\nfire resistant lining that meet the fire penetrotion resistant and thermal resistant testing; 4G\nshipping box) with the box manufacturer stating that any fire resistant filler can be used to pack\nthe box. O~\n• Our Protective Breathing Equipment (PBE), which contains additional insulation, helps keep the\ngenerators separate and can only aid with the impact and thermal resistance.\n• The original packaging is identified by the manufacturer as, \"packaging consists of a standard\ncardboard box coated with glass fiber liners inside\"; see attached::Removing one plastic divider\ndoes not change this or affect, Part 178, subparts Land M requirements. The shipping\ncontainer is identjfjed as 4G packaging.\n• 49 CFR § 178.601\n(4) A different packaging is one that differs (i.e. is not identical) from a previously\nproduced packaging in structural design, size, material ofconstruction, wall thickness or\nmanner ofconstruction but does not include:\n(ii) A combination packaging which differs only in that the outer packaging has been\nsuccessfully tested with different inner packaging. A variety o{such inner packaging\nmav be assembled in this outer packaging without further testing; NO\nConsequently we are under the understanding that we can use a third party DOT31 FP Oxygen\nGenerator Box, consisting of a corrugated box wi thermal lining, filled with Vermiculite (or\nother non-flammable filler) to ship our protective breathing equipment (PBE) and be in\ncompliance with the HMR.\nWe look forward to your review as we feel, thanks to the clarifications you provided, we were\nable to confirm that we should be in a position to ship our protective breathing equipment (PBE)\nin compliance with all appropriate regulations. In case you would come to a different\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nconclusion, we would appreciate your detailed comments, including any potential tests which\nmay have to be repeated.\nOnce again, thank you for your inputs.\nBest regards,\nTae Kim\nSr. Project Engineer\n\" 9671 Irvine Center Drive\nKoll Center II - Building 6\nIrvine, CA 92618\nPhone: 949-727-3844 ext 202\nE-mail: tkim@ppp.aero\nFrom: Alice.Dodd@dot.gov [mailto:Alice.Dodd@dot.gov]\nSent: Friday, July 15, 2011 12:58 PM\nTo: Tae Kim\nSubject: Interpretation Letter\nPer Mr. Foster's request. Attached is a copy ofthe response to your Interpretation. Also the original\nhas been mailed to you as well.\nThank You,\nAlice Dodd\nOffice ofPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nDepartment ofTransportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nE-24-403\nWashington, DC 20590\nOffice :202-366-9141\nFax:202-366-7041\nEmail: A lice. Dodd(Zi),l)ot. Gov\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":12940}