{"operation":"document","citation":"14-0047","title":"Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2015-01-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"14-0047 response to Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. concerning 173.166, 173.56.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0047.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0047.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0047","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2015/140047.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMaterials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous\nJAN 0 5 2015\nAdministration\nMr. Mark Ludwikowski, Esq.\nSandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.\n1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Suite 400\nWashington, DC 20004-3062\nRef. No.: 14-0047\nDear Mr. Ludwikowski:\nThis is in response to your email dated March 11, 2014, requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) relating to the\nclassification of airbag inflators. Your client produces the same model or same family of\ninflators using the same designs across multiple manufacturing sites.\nQ1. You ask whether a single testing lab report for a particular inflator model or inflator\nfamily can be used across your client's multiple manufacturing sites and if this is dependent\nupon whether the inflator is classed as Class 9 (UN3268) or if the company submits an\napplication to PHMSA for and EX approval.\nAl. An EX approval for an explosive article remains valid for the same article produced by\nthe same manufacturer at multiple facilities within the United States. However, approvals\nissued for explosive articles manufactured at a facility outside the United States are only\nvalid for articles produced at that facility unless an authorized laboratory has examined the\narticle and issued a test report conforming to the provisions of §173.166(b)(1) for the article\nas produced at each additional facility outside of the United States. This applies regardless\nof whether the article is ultimately classed as a Class 9 (UN3268) or classed and approved as\nDivision 1.4G and assigned an EX number by the PHMSA Associate Administrator.\nQ2. You also ask whether the energetics used in the inflators must be exactly the same\nacross manufacturing sites and if the energetics must be of the same origin.\nA2. The energetic formulations used in inflators must be exactly the same in order to be\nincluded in a single design type under the provisions of § 173.166(b)(1). Variations in\nenergetic formulations may be authorized under the provisions of the EX approval process\nin § 173.56 if the explosive examination laboratory documents the variations in a report by\nanalogy to an inflator previously tested, and PHMSA concurs by issuing an EX approval for\nthe inflator.\nI trust this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact this office.\nSincerely,\nShane C. Kelley\nActing International Standards Coordinator\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nBabich\n5173.166\n3173.56 (b) 1)\nAir Bags Inflators\nSANDLER, TRAVIS & ROSENBERG, P.A.\n14-0047\nATTORNEYS AT LAW\nMARK LUDWIKOWSKI, EsQ.\nMember, D.C. Bar\nE-MAIL ADDRESS:\n(202) 730-4967 Direct\nmludwikowski@strtrade.com\n(202) 842-2247 Facsimile\n(202) 216-9307 Telephone\nMarch 11, 2014\nVIA FIRST CLASS MAIL AND EMAIL: infocntr@dot.gov\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nEast Building\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nAttn: PHH-10\nRE: Interpretation Request - Use of Test Reports for Multiple Manufacturing Sites\nDaicel Corporation\nDear Sir or Madam:\nFurther to our email communications with Mr. William Fink at PHMSA on February 6, 2014,\non behalf of our client Daicel Corporation (\"Daicel\") 823 Umaba, Ibogawa-Cho, Tatsuno-shi, Hyogo,\nJapan 671-1681, we hereby request an interpretation concerning the following issue.\nDaicel and its affiliates in the United States, Thailand, Poland, China and Korea manufacture\nairbag inflators at these various locations. Often, the same exact model inflators (or inflator families)\nusing the same designs are manufactured across these multiple Daicel manufacturing sites. The\n- company would like to know whether a single testing lab report for a model inflator or inflator family -\n- can be used for its multiple manufacturing sites if the inflator designs are the same. Assuming that the -\n- test report can be used for multiple sites, is the origin of the energetics used in the inflator critical? In\nother words, must the energetics also be exactly the same across manufacturing sites and must the\nenergetics be of the same origin? The new regulations at 49 C.F.R. 173.166(b) only reference design\ntype, specifically:\n(b) Classification. (1) An air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner,\nexcluding those which contain flammable or toxic gases or mixtures thereof, may be\nclassed as Class 9 (UN3268) if the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt\npretensioner, or if more than a single air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt\npretensioner is involved then the representative of the maximum parameters of each\n- design type, is examined and successfully tested by a person or agency who is\n1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20004-3062 USA\nCHICAGO • HONG KONG • MIAMI • NEW YORK • SAN FRANCISCO • SCOTTSDALE • WASHINGTON, D.C.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nSANDLER, TRAVIS & ROSENBERG, P.A.\nD\nMarch 11, 2014\nPage 2 of 2\nauthorized by the Associate Administrator to perform examination and testing of\nexplosives under § 173.56(b)(I)...\n(emphasis added).\nThis question applies regardless of whether or not the company submits an approval application\nto PHMSA for an EX approval under the new inflator regulations. In the revised regulations, PHMSA\nexplained that:\nAs was proposed in the NPRM, persons who test and examine air bag inflators, air bag\nmodules, or seat-belt pretensioners would be required to provide a detailed report on\neach tested design to the manufacturer. Key components of the report include a\ndescription of the design; explanation of the tests performed and results; and a\nrecommended classification for tested designs... In summary, the proposed NPRM\namendments provided manufacturers of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt\npretensioners with the option to utilize new designs that are proven to meet the criteria\nof a Class 9 through established test criteria, without receiving an EX approval from\nPHMSA.\nHazardous Materials: Approval and Communication Requirements for the Safe Transportation of Air\nBag Inflators, Air Bag Modules, and Seat-Belt Pretensioners (RRR), 78 Fed. Reg. 45880, 45882 (July\n30, 2013). (emphasis added).\nor if we can be of assistance.\nThank you for your consideration of this inquiry. Please let me know if you have any questions\nSincerely yours,\nSANDLER, TRAVIS & ROSENBERG, P.A.\nBy:..\nMark Ludwikowski\nCc:\nWilliam Fink\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nINFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo:\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nWednesday, March 12, 2014 1:13 PM\nSubject:\nAttachments:\nInterpretation Request - Use of Test Reports for Multiple Sites.pdf; Mark Ludwikowski.vcf: Mark\nFW: Interpretation Request - Use of Test Reports for Multiple Manufacturing Sites\nLudwikowski.vcf\nImportance:\nHigh\nHi Carolyn,\nThis caller requested we submit this e-mail as a formal letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nVictoria\nd\nFrom: Mark Ludwikowski [mailto:mludwikowski@strtrade.com]\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6:20 PM\nCc: Fink, William (PHMSA)\nSubject: Interpretation Request - Use of Test Reports for Multiple Manufacturing Sites\nImportance: High\nDear Sir or Madam,\nAttached, please find the interpretation request submitted on behalf of our\nclient Daicel Corporation. Please let us know if\nhard copy of this request is being sent by first class mail.\nyou have any questions. A\nThank you.\nMark Ludwikowski\nMember\nMark Ludwikowski\nSandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.\n1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20004\nmludwikowski@strtrade.com | www.strtrade.com\nT:(202) 730-4967 C:(703) 888-8380 F:(202) 842-2247\nThe information contained in this email message and any attachments is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named\ndissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy it and remove it immediately\nabove. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any\nfrom your PC and server, and notify us by return email that it was received in error. Thank you\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":8375}