The Journal of HazMat Transportation's (TM) Exclusive Comments on U.S. DOT Letters of Interpretation of the Hazardous Materials Regulations

摘要

These PHMSA letters deal with the issue of what may be considered as qualifying for assignment to UN3268 Safety Device, electrically initiated under §173.166. Both PHMSA letters are responsive to the question of whether a particular class of devices known as "micro gas generators" (MGG) qualify as "Class 9 UN 3268 Safety Devices" subject to the requirements in §173.166. There is obvious frustration on the part of the one questioner who states in his letter, "Autoliv is petitioning your help to talk with your Tech Division [i.e., the Science Branch within the PHMSA Hazmat Sciences, Engineering and Research Division] to allow these parts to be classified as UN3268, Safety Device, 9." The questioner notes that the Safety Device classification has already been approved by China and France. From the questioners comments it appears that PHMSA's Technical Office which is normally responsible for approval of safety device classifications has recommended against such an approval for the questioner's MGGs. If China and France have already authorized a Class 9 safety device classification for MGGs, a US manufacturer (e.g., Autoliv) who, in the absence of a safety device approval, would be required to transport the same devices as 1.4 explosives, would likely be at a competitive disadvantage in comparison to foreign competitors Let's look at what is going on.