Interpretation Response #11-0108 ([Mr. Tae Kim])

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

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 07/15/2011

Company Name:

Individual Name: Mr. Tae Kim

Location State: CA Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

July 15, 2011

Mr. Tae Kim

9671 Irvine Center Drive

Koll Center II " Building 6

Irvine, CA 92618

Reference No.: 11-0108

Dear Mr. Kim:

This responds to your May 6, 2011 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the use and packaging of a chemical oxygen generator (COG). Specifically, you request written confirmation that the manner in which you are preparing and packaging your insulated handheld COG is in compliance with the HMR. You also indicate in your email that you received verbal confirmation from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration"s (PHMSA) Hazardous Materials Information Center (HMIC) that your packaging is in compliance with the HMR.

In your incoming email, you describe a scenario in which you purchased a COG whose design has been approved by the Associate Administrator of the PHMSA. In addition, in your incoming email, you included a document from the manufacturer of the packaging used to initially transport the COG which states the packaging that contains the COG has been successfully tested in accordance with § 173.168. Subsequently, you modified the COG by adding insulation to facilitate handheld use, and then repackaged the modified COG in the originally-tested and approved packaging. However, you modified the approved original packaging configuration by removing some of the inner packaging to accommodate the increased size of the modified insulated COG.

Based on the original approval of the COG and the descriptions, pictures and documentation you provided with your incoming email, it is the opinion of this Office that the modified insulated COG no longer meets the original approval for the COG and, thus, would require submittal for approval from the Associate Administrator of PHMSA in order to be in shipped in compliance with the HMR. Furthermore, it is the opinion of this Office



that the packaging design you modified deviates significantly enough from the originally-tested package design that the modified packaging would need to be subjected to the testing requirements described in § 173.168 in order to be shipped in compliance with the HMR.

I hope this satisfies your inquiry and apologize for any misunderstanding in the response you received from the HMIC. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

T. Glenn Foster

Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch

Standards and Rulemaking Division

173.168

Regulation Sections