USA Banner

Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation

Interpretation Response #10-0177 ([CSE Corporation] [Mr. Jeff Tocci])

Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date:

Company Name: CSE Corporation

Individual Name: Mr. Jeff Tocci

Location State: PA Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

November 24, 2010

 

 

Mr. Jeff Tocci

CSE Corporation

600 Seco Road

Monroeville, PA 15146



Ref. No. 10-0177

Dear Mr. Tocci:

This responds to your August 19, 2010 email and subsequent telephone conversation with a member of my staff regarding the transportation of a chemical oxygen generator (COG) under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you request clarification of the approval requirement and authorized packaging under § 173.168. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:

Q1. Our company held a competent authority approval to offer for transportation a COG. Our company manufactures the COG. It is our understanding that because of the incorporation of

§ 173.168 of the HMR, a renewal of our approval is not needed?

A1. Your understanding is correct. Aspects of COG approvals associated with shipment of a COG were incorporated into the HMR under final rule HM-224B (72 FR 4442; January 31, 2007) and specifically focused on safety controls, packaging, and marking, thus, eliminating the need for shipment approvals including the approval held by your company. However, a classification approval is still necessary for manufacturers of a COG (See HM-224B; 72 FR 4452). Therefore, based on your indication that your company manufactures a COG, your company must obtain a classification approval in accordance with § 173.168(a) of the HMR.

Q2. Further, it is our understanding that a COG that uses an explosive means of initiation attached must obtain an approval as an explosive. Our COG design uses a non-explosive means of initiation. Thus, we believe our COG is excluded from the requirement to obtain an EX number. Is this correct?

A2. Your understanding is not correct. The requirement under § 173.168(a) to obtain an approval applies to a COG with either an explosive or non-explosive means of initiation attached. Although the COG must be classed and approved following the same procedures used for the classification and approval of an explosive under § 173.56, it does not follow that the COG will be classed as an explosive. However, the COG may still be assigned an EX approval number. EX approval numbers are not necessarily tied to explosives.

Q3. Is Packing Group (PG) II performance level packaging the proper packaging for ground transport of a COG?

A3. Yes, in accordance with § 173.168, a rigid outer (non-bulk) packaging manufactured at the PG II performance level is authorized for ground transport of a COG. This section also authorizes the use of more stringent packaging at the PG I performance level.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.

Sincerely,

Ben Supko

Acting Chief, Standards Development

Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

173.168, 173.56

Regulation Sections

Section Subject
173.168 Chemical oxygen generators
173.56 New explosives-definition and procedures for classification and approval