[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45880-45893]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18263]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 172 and 173

[Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0201 (HM-254)]
RIN 2137-AE62

Hazardous Materials: Approval and Communication Requirements for
the Safe Transportation of Air Bag Inflators, Air Bag Modules, and
Seat-Belt Pretensioners (RRR)

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is
amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations applicable to air bag
inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. The revisions
incorporate the provisions of two special permits into the regulations.
In addition, PHMSA is amending the current approval and documentation
requirements for a material classified as a UN3268 air bag inflator,
air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner. These revisions are intended
to reduce the regulatory burden on the automotive industry and
facilitate commerce, while continuing to maintain an equivalent level
of safety.

DATES: Effective date: August 29, 2013. Voluntary compliance date:
PHMSA is authorizing voluntary compliance beginning July 30, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Nickels, Standards and
Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Amendments Adopted in Final Rule
IV. Comments Submitted Regarding the NPRM and PHMSA's Response to
Those Comments
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
    B. Executive Order 13610, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order
12866, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    C. Executive Order 13132
    D. Executive Order 13175
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Procedures and Policies
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Environmental Assessment
    J. Privacy Act
    K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis
    L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    List of Subjects

I. Executive Summary

    In this final rule, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR) applicable to the transportation of air bag inflators, air bag
modules, and seat-belt pretensioners in Sec.  173.166. This rulemaking
is responsive to one petition for rulemaking submitted by an industry
representative: P-1523, asking that PHMSA remove unnecessary burdens on
the industry that do not advance safety. Further, this final rule is
incorporating into the HMR the provisions of two widely used and
longstanding special permits with established safety records (DOT-SP
12332 and DOT-SP 13996). These revisions are intended to reduce the
regulatory burden on the automotive industry and facilitate commerce,
while continuing to maintain an equivalent level of safety.

    This rulemaking specifically finalizes revisions to five regulatory
initiatives. The first initiative modifies the approval process and
documentation requirements associated with classifying air bag
inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. The second
initiative incorporates provisions of DOT-SP 12332 into the HMR by
excepting Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt
pretensioners assigned to UN3268 from the requirement to provide the EX
number on the shipping paper. The third initiative is a simple
clarification that a safety restraint device that is installed in a
vehicle or vehicle component is not subject to the HMR. The fourth
initiative incorporates provisions of DOT-SP 13996 into the HMR by
authorizing the use of non-DOT specification, reusable containers
manufactured from high-strength plastic, metal, or other suitable
material, or other dedicated handling devices, for transportation of
air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. The
fifth initiative permits several additional types of packaging to
maintain alignment with the 17th revised edition of the UN Model
Regulations.
    The costs and benefits of the amended regulations are dependent on
the level of preexisting compliance with the two special permits and
the overall effectiveness of the amended regulations (e.g., flexibility
provided when incorporating portions or whole special permits).
Additionally, we believe that this rulemaking will benefit the
automobile industry because it will reduce the burden in how air bag
inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners are authorized
for shipment by eliminating the necessity to submit approval
applications to PHMSA, and thus provide a significant cost savings.
    The costs associated with the rule are negligible due to minor
revisions to the recordkeeping requirements. DOT explosives test labs
that test and examine air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt
pretensioners will be required to provide the manufacturer a detailed
report on each tested design. The DOT explosives test labs already
provide manufacturers with test reports for classification purposes,
but the amended reporting requirements will require minimal additions
to the report (e.g., unique product identifier, etc.). Outside of this
marginal impact, this rulemaking provides numerous benefits. PHMSA is
currently spending/expending an estimated $82,800 per year to process
and review special permits and approvals associated with Class 9
airbags and seat-belt pretensioners. Further, industry incurs an
estimated $165,000 per year to prepare and submit applications for
special permits and approvals, and $890,000 per year to provide the EX
numbers on shipping papers. Combined, these costs total $1,137,800 per
year. Since the objective of the rule is to eliminate these costs, the
benefits that can be achieved are estimated to be $1,137,800 per year.
    However, notwithstanding the data above, because of the difficulty
of and uncertainty associated with forecasting industry effects into
the far future, we assumed a 10-year timeframe to outline, quantify,
and monetize the costs and benefits of the rulemaking and to
demonstrate the net effects of the rulemaking.
    The net benefits of the rule are calculated by subtracting the
costs from the benefits. Since the costs are assumed to be negligible,
the first-year net benefits are estimated to be $1.14 million. Based
upon the market analysis presented in the regulatory impact assessment
(RIA), it's assumed these benefits will grow at an annual average rate
of 5 percent.\1\ Calculating the present value of this net benefit over
ten years produces an estimated benefit of between ten and twelve
million dollars, using the discount rates of 7 percent and 3 percent,
respectively. A summary of the expected annualized costs and benefits
is provided in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its recent report, ``Global Automotive Airbag Market
2011-2015,'' TechNavio is forecasting that the global airbag market
will grow at a compounded annual average annual growth rate of 11.54
percent. Given the maturity of the airbag market in the United
States, we believe the growth rate in the U.S. market will be less
than the global growth rate and therefore assumed 5 percent for the
U.S. market.

Annualized benefit (in 2013 $).........  $1.14 million.
Annualized Cost (in 2013 $)............  $0 (negligible).
Benefit-Cost Ratio.....................  All benefits.
10-Year Benefits at 7% and 3% Discount   $10-12 million.
 Rates.

    With this in mind, PHMSA has concluded that the aggregate benefits
justify the final rule. For additional information and review of the
analysis underlying these estimates, as well as possible approaches to
reduce the costs of this rule while maintaining or increasing the
benefits, please review the RIA available at the public docket for this
rulemaking.

II. Background

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 26, 2012 [77 FR
17394] under Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0201 (HM-254) to amend the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the
transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt
pretensioners in Sec.  173.166. This NPRM was part of an ongoing review
by PHMSA to identify widely used and longstanding special permits with
established safety records for adoption into HMR. The numbers of the
special permits considered for incorporation in the NPRM were DOT-SP:
12332 and 13996. PHMSA identified these special permits as implementing
operational techniques that achieve a safety level that corresponds to
or exceeds the safety level required under the HMR. In addition, this
rulemaking addresses petition for rulemaking P-1523, dated June 24,
2008 (P-1523) and two addendums submitted on February 26, 2009 and June
14, 2011 by the North American Automotive Hazmat Action Committee
(NAAHAC). NAAHAC represents numerous automobile manufacturers and
component suppliers located in North America as well as in Asia and
Europe. NAAHAC's petition requested revisions to requirements in the
HMR applicable to safety restraint systems (e.g., air bag inflators,
air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners). NAAHAC suggested that
subjecting Class 9, UN3268 safety restraint systems to the EX approval
process in accordance with Sec.  173.56 imposed an unnecessary burden
on the industry that does not advance safety. Therefore, NAAHAC
requested that PHMSA remove the requirement for manufacturers to apply
for and receive an EX approval number for the shipment of Class 9,
UN3268 safety restraint systems.
    In addition, NAAHAC suggested that PHMSA incorporate the following
long-standing special permits into the HMR:
     DOT-SP 12332--This special permit provides relief from
Sec.  173.166(c) in that it allows the devices to be shipped without
listing the EX-approval numbers or product names on the shipping
papers, and from Sec.  173.166(e) in that an alternative packaging
method is authorized. The special permit has been in effect since 2000,
and has been utilized by more than 2,100 grantees with no known safety
problems. A review of the Hazardous Materials Incident Data library did
not reveal any incidents related to this special permit since the date
of its issuance. This special permit applies to Class 9, UN3268
materials that are packaged using either of the two following methods:
    a. Non-specification steel drums with a wall and lid thickness not
less than 20 gauge. The lid must be securely affixed

with a lever-locking or bolted-ring assembly. The threaded bung closure
in the top of the drum must be removed prior to shipment and the bung
opening covered with waterproof plastic tape or a waterproof soft
plastic cap that must easily provide ventilation of the drum contents
in the event of a fire. The drum may be filled with any combination of
air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioner devices
to a capacity not greater than fifty (50) percent of the drum's total
volume; inner packagings are not necessary; or
    b. Outer packagings that are UN Standard 4H2 solid plastic boxes or
non-specification rugged reusable plastic containers with either trays
or cushioning material in the containers to prevent movement of
articles during transportation. Inner packagings are static-resistant
plastic bags or trays.
     DOT-SP 13996--This special permit provides relief from
Sec.  173.166(e)(4) in that it authorizes the transportation, under
certain conditions, of Class 9, UN3268 air bag inflators, air bag
modules, and seat-belt pretensioners in reusable containers
manufactured from high-strength plastic, metal, or other suitable
material, or other dedicated handling devices. The special permit has
been in effect since 2005, and has been utilized by 31 grantees with no
known safety problems. A review of the Hazardous Materials Incident
Data library did not reveal any incidents related to this special
permit since the date of its issuance.
    As stated above, in addition to NAAHAC's petition suggesting that
subjecting Class 9, UN3268 safety restraint systems to the EX approval
process in accordance with Sec.  173.56 imposes an unnecessary burden
on the industry that does not advance safety, the petition also
suggested that PHMSA incorporate these two long-standing special
permits into the HMR. PHMSA agrees with the petition and proposed to
amend the HMR to incorporate certain requirements based on these two
special permits issued under 49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B (Sec. Sec.
107.101 to 107.127).

III. Amendments Adopted in Final Rule

    PHMSA agrees with the petitioner that requiring documentation for
Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners
to be submitted to PHMSA and assigned an EX Number is unnecessarily
burdensome. PHMSA believes that eliminating this requirement will not
adversely affect safety since the devices will still continue to be
sent to the explosive test labs for classification purposes and
assigned a unique product identifier by the lab, but the documentation
will no longer be forwarded to PHMSA and issued an EX Number (please
see A. Approval Process below for further discussion). Further, PHMSA
agrees that incorporating the terms of DOT-SP 12332 and DOT-SP 13996
into the HMR will promote compliance and safety. As a result, PHMSA
proposed to revise Sec.  173.166 to address the concerns highlighted in
NAAHAC's petition. PHMSA believed that changes proposed by the NPRM
promoted the safe transportation of Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag
modules, and seat-belt pretensioners, while significantly reducing the
financial burden on the overall automotive industry (and the device
manufacturers specifically) for shipping these devices. The amendments
adopted by this final rule are summarized below.

A. Approval Process

    In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to allow manufacturers of air bag
inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners to receive a
classification of Class 9 (UN3268) for new designs that pass Test
series 6(c) of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, which is currently
required by Special Provision 160. As was proposed, an air bag
inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner would be classed as
Class 9 (UN3268) if the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt
pretensioner design is examined and successfully tested by a person or
agency (authorized testing agency) who is authorized by the Associate
Administrator to perform such examination and testing of explosives
under 173.56(b)(1).
    As was proposed in the NPRM, persons who test and examine air bag
inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners would be
required to provide a detailed report on each tested design to the
manufacturer. Key components of the report include a description of the
design; explanation of the tests performed and results; and a
recommended classification for tested designs. The manufacturer must
retain the report for as long as the design is in production and for 15
years thereafter. Additionally, the manufacturer must make the report
available to Department officials upon request. This record retention
requirement ensures that a detailed test report of each air bag
inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is
maintained and available for the useful life of the device. These
records may be used to verify the accuracy and validity of the tests
and classification recommendation.
    In summary, the proposed NPRM amendments provided manufacturers of
air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners with the
option to utilize new designs that are proven to meet the criteria of a
Class 9 through established test criteria, without receiving an EX
approval from PHMSA. The result would be a significant cost savings and
no change in the level of safety. Additionally, we proposed to permit
manufacturers to continue to receive EX approval by submitting their
designs for examination and testing in accordance with Sec.  173.56(b)
if they so choose.
    If an air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner
fails Test series 6(c) of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, as
provided by Special Provision 160, then the device must continue to be
approved by PHMSA in accordance with the explosive examination,
classification, and approval process in Sec.  173.56(b).

B. Shipping Papers

    PHMSA proposed in the NPRM to except Class 9 air bag inflators, air
bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners assigned to UN3268 from the
requirement to provide the EX number on the shipping paper. As
suggested by NAAHAC, the documentation requirement imposes a cost
burden, but does not provide a safety benefit.

C. Safety Restraint Systems Installed in Vehicles

    In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to clarify that a safety restraint
device that is installed in a vehicle or vehicle component is not
subject to the HMR. This change made it clear that the exception will
continue to apply to Class 9, UN3268 materials that are not approved by
the Associate Administrator.

D. Packaging

    In the NPRM, PHMSA also proposed to authorize the use of non-DOT
specification, reusable containers manufactured from high strength
plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling
devices, for transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and
seat-belt pretensioners. This change would incorporate the provisions
of Special Permit DOT-SP 13996 into the HMR.
    Special Permit DOT-SP 13996 allows the specified packaging to be
used for transportation from the manufacturing facility to an
intermediate handling location; from an intermediate handling location
to the assembly facility; from the assembly facility to an intermediate
handling location; from the intermediate handling location back to the
manufacturing facility; or from the

assembly facility directly to the manufacturer with no intermediate
facility involved. As proposed in the NPRM, there would be no limit on
the use of the authorized packaging to transportation between specific
destinations. However, no modifications or changes may be made to the
original package, and the transportation must be made by private or
contract carrier. By prohibiting modifications to the original package,
this would ensure that adequate packaging and handling considerations
are maintained.
    In the NPRM, PHMSA also proposed to authorize additional packaging
alternatives for air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt
pretensioners that have been removed from, or were intended to be used
in, a motor vehicle that meets the requirements for use in the United
States. The proposed change would incorporate the provisions of Special
Permit DOT-SP 12332 into the HMR. In accordance with the special
permit, this additional packaging option would be limited to devices
that are offered for transportation and transported domestically by
highway.

E. Shipments for Recycling/Reuse

    In the NPRM, we did not propose any changes to the requirements for
shipping air bag modules or seat-belt pretensioners for recycling. In
the current HMR, when offered for domestic transportation by highway,
rail freight, cargo vessel or cargo aircraft, a serviceable air bag
module or seat-belt pretensioner removed from a motor vehicle that was
manufactured as required for use in the U.S. may be offered for
transportation and transported without compliance with the shipping
paper requirement prescribed in Sec.  173.166(c), but the word
``Recycled'' must be entered on the shipping paper immediately after
the basic description prescribed in Sec.  172.202. However, we believed
that the word ``Reuse'' might be a more appropriate description for the
actual action that is taking place. We requested comments regarding a
potential change from the word ``Recycled'' to ``Reuse'' that would
appear on shipping papers in accordance with an altered Sec.
173.166(d)(4).

F. Additional Packaging Authorizations

    To maintain alignment of the HMR with international requirements,
in the NPRM, we proposed to incorporate changes based on the
Seventeenth revised edition of the UN Model Regulations. Specifically,
in addition to the packagings authorized currently in Sec.
173.166(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3), we proposed to permit 1N2 and 1D
drums, 3B2 jerricans, and 4A, 4B, 4N, and 4H1 boxes.

IV. Comments Submitted Regarding the NPRM and PHMSA's Response to Those
Comments

    In response to PHMSA's March 26, 2012 NPRM (77 FR 17394), PHMSA
received comments from seven organizations, associations, and
individuals. While the majority of commenters supported the proposals
in the NPRM, some commenters had suggestions for additional revisions
to the regulatory text. The comments, as submitted to this docket, may
be accessed via http://www.regulations.gov and were submitted by the
following entities:
    (1) Hapag-Lloyd America; PHMSA-2010-0201-0002.
    (2) United Parcel Service (UPS); PHMSA-2010-0201-0003.
    (3) International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Association
(IVODGA); PHMSA-2010-0201-0004.
    (4) North American Automotive Hazardous Materials Action Committee
(NAAHAC); PHMSA-2010-0201-0005.
    (5) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); PHMSA-2010-0201-
0006.
    (6) National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA); PHMSA-2010-
0201-0007.
    (7) Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc.
(COSTHA); PHMSA-2010-0201-0008.
    The two special permits addressed in this final rule that authorize
the transportation in commerce of certain air bag inflators, air bag
modules, and seat-belt pretensioners under the HMR were initially
issued to members of industry associations or similar organizations.
They have well established safety records, and therefore PHMSA has
determined that they are excellent candidates for incorporation into
the HMR. Incorporating these special permits into the HMR will
eliminate the need for over 2,100 current grantees to reapply for the
renewal of two special permits every four years and for PHMSA to
process the renewal applications, thereby eliminating a significant
paperwork burden both on industry and the government.
    Below is a discussion of comments we received regarding specific
provisions proposed in the NPRM, and PHMSA's position regarding those
comments. As discussed above, commenters were supportive of this
rulemaking, and those comments within the scope of this rulemaking are
discussed below.

A. Comments on Paragraph (b) of Sec.  173.166

    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  173.166 provides for the classification
requirements of an air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt
pretensioner. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to allow manufacturers of air
bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners to receive a
classification of Class 9 (UN3268) to new designs that pass Test series
6(c) of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria--currently required by
Special Provision 160. We also proposed that, an air bag inflator, air
bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner may be classed as Class 9
(UN3268) if the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt
pretensioner design is examined and successfully tested by a person or
agency (authorized testing agency) who is authorized by the Associate
Administrator to perform such examination and testing of explosives
under 173.56(b)(1). PHMSA received comments in support of these
proposed amendments because these changes would simplify the
classification process. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some
modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (b).

    One commenter suggested:
    We would point out that at the present time there are air bag
inflator designs which utilize a flammable gas mixture, and while
these devices have tested out of Class 1 they have never been
included in Class 9/UN3268. They have, instead, been classified as
Class/Division 2.1. While we believe it would certainly be
appropriate to allow flammable gas mixtures to be classed as 1.4G if
the devices did not meet the criteria for exclusion from Class 1, we
do not feel that they should be included in Class 9 as they meet the
characteristics of a flammable gas.

    We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in
paragraph (b)(1) to reflect this in this final rule.
    Another commenter suggested: ``We ask that the reference to
`maximum parameters of each design' continue to be included in the
regulation, as it is key to understanding that the approvals issued are
not specific to individual part numbers but rather to design types.''
We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in both
paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) to reflect this in this final rule.

    Regarding Sec.  173.166(b)(2), one commenter suggested:
    We would ask the complete reference to 173.56(b)(1) be included
rather than just to 173.56. This will match the similar reference
contained in paragraph (b)(1) above. We are requesting this so that
all parties who read both portions of the regulations are clearly
pointed to 173.56(b)(1) which specifies those agencies authorized by
the DOT, and particularly that they are US citizens.

    We agree with the commenter's point and revised the language in
paragraph (b)(2) to reflect this in this final rule.

B. Comments on Paragraph (c) of Sec.  173.166

    Paragraph (c) of Sec.  173.166 provides for Class 9 air bag
inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners assigned to
UN3268 to be excepted from the requirement to provide the EX number on
the shipping paper. As suggested by the original NAAHAC petition, the
documentation requirement imposes a cost burden, but does not provide a
safety benefit. PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed
amendments because these changes would simplify the hazard
communication process. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some
modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (c).
    One commenter suggested: ``We find the wording of this paragraph
extremely confusing, and we would ask that the language be made clearer
to ensure compliance.'' Another commenter suggested that: ``PHMSA may
simply be able to eliminate the proposed 173.166(c)(1) and create a new
173.166(c) by adapting the language found in the proposed
173.166(c)(2).'' After reviewing the regulatory text from the NPRM, we
agree partially with the commenters' issue and revised the language in
paragraph (c) to reflect this in this final rule.

C. Comments on Paragraph (d) of Sec.  173.166

    Paragraph (d) of Sec.  173.166 provides for certain exceptions for
Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners.
In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to clarify that a safety restraint device
that is installed in a vehicle or vehicle component is not subject to
the HMR. PHMSA determined that this change makes it clear that the
exception will continue to apply to Class 9, UN3268 materials that are
not approved by the Associate Administrator. PHMSA received comments in
support of these proposed amendments because these changes would
simplify the exceptions provided. However, commenters did provide PHMSA
with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (d).

    Regarding Sec.  173.166(d)(1), one commenter suggested:
    We are asking for the inclusion of the term `inflator' in the
exceptions so as to harmonize with the 17th Revised Edition of the
Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, UN Model
Regulations, Special Provision 289. We also feel that it is
important to clarify that in order to utilize the exception offered
in this paragraph in the U.S., the devices must have been classified
as Class 9 per the 49 CFR. This is clear for the 1.4G's but not for
the Class 9's. Additionally, we commend the DOT for clarifying that
this relief applies to both the Class 9 and 1.4G devices.

    We agree with the commenters points and revised the language in
paragraph (d)(1) to reflect this in this final rule.
    Regarding Sec.  173.166(d)(2), one commenter suggested: ``During
previous discussions with PHMSA in the summer of 2011, this topic was
addressed informally and the industry has been operating within this
policy since that time. We strongly feel that placing this into the
regulation significantly enhances understanding and compliance.'' After
reviewing the language provided, we agree with the commenters point and
revised the language in paragraph (d)(2) to reflect this in this final
rule.

    Regarding Sec.  173.166(d)(4), one commenter suggested:
    This paragraph is the basis of the special permit DOT-SP 12332,
which expanded upon this exception and offered additional packaging
options. Both this paragraph and the areas where DOT-SP 12332 were
incorporated into the regulation should address both disposal and
recycling, not just recycling. This should apply to inflators,
modules and pretensioners of either Class 9 or 1.4G.

    We agree with the commenter's point and revised the language in
paragraph (d)(4) to reflect this in this final rule.
    Also, the same commenter suggested: `We do not feel that the terms
`Reuse' or `Reused' should be substituted for ``Recycle'' or
``Recycled''. The Automotive Safety Council (formerly Automotive
Occupant Restraints Council--AORC) has gone on record many times
against the reuse of airbags.'' We appreciate the feedback since we
asked the question in the NPRM regarding using the term ``reuse'' v.
``recycled,'' and we agree with the commenter and will not be revising
the language in paragraph (d)(4) in this final rule.
    A commenter suggested: ``While we do feel it is helpful to have the
word `Recycled' following the basic description when shipping to a
recycling location, we hope that the requirement to have the word
`waste' in association with the basic description will only come into
play when required by 172.101(c)(9).'' We do agree with the commenter's
point and note that while it doesn't affect the regulatory text in this
final rule, shippers should use the word ``waste'' when required by
Sec.  172.101(c)(9).

    Lastly, another commenter countered a previous point with:
    In addition to this possible streamlining of the text, PHMSA may
also be able to simplify the requirements for the shipment of
recycled Air bag inflators, Air bag modules and Seat belt
pretensioners that are assigned to Class 9. The current proposal
retains the requirement to include the word `Recycled' on the
shipping paper immediately after the basic description. However, we
submit there is no need for this additional text. The function of
the word `Recycled' is presumably to explain the absence of the EX
number from a shipping paper. But the very purpose of the simplified
procedures for Class 9 Air bag inflators, Air bag modules and Seat
belt pretensioners appears to accomplish the same goal. By proposing
to eliminate the need for inclusion of the EX number on a shipping
paper associated with a Class 9 shipment of these articles, PHMSA
eliminates the need to distinguish recycled Air bag inflators, Air
bag modules and Seat belt pretensioners from those sent in new
condition. We believe that with the changes proposed in Docket HM-
254, there is no value in requiring the word `Recycled' to appear on
the shipping paper. It appears that PHMSA could simply delete the
text of Sec.  173.166(d)(4), and we respectfully requests that PHMSA
consider this change.

    While we do appreciate the feedback regarding the recycling
provisions, we disagree on the statement that they provide no further
value to the HMR; and, therefore we will not be further revising the
language in paragraph (d)(4) in this final rule.

D. Comments on Paragraph (e) of Sec.  173.166

    Paragraph (e) of Sec.  173.166 permits different types of
packagings for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt
pretensioners. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to authorize the use of non-
DOT specification, reusable containers manufactured from high strength
plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling
devices, for transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and
seat-belt pretensioners. PHMSA also proposed to authorize additional
packaging alternatives for air bag inflators, air bag modules, and
seat-belt pretensioners that have been removed from, or were intended
to be used in, a motor vehicle that meets the requirements for use in
the United States. PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed
amendments because these changes would expand the options for shipping
these products. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some
modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (e).

    Regarding the introductory text of Sec.  173.166(e), one
commenter suggested:
    During a meeting in 2011 with PHMSA, the Supplier Regulatory
Workgroup of NAAHAC

explained that several of our OEMs (customers), have had difficulty
with this paragraph in the past. The current wording of the
regulation and the PHMSA's proposed wording do not clearly
differentiate between the specification packagings in paragraphs
173.166(e)(1), (2) and (3) and the non-specification packagings in
(4). With the changes suggested here any confusion would be
eliminated. We are in complete agreement with the last sentence of
this paragraph, as we believe it brings clarification to the issue
of packaging dependent classifications.

    After reviewing the introductory text to paragraph (e), we agree
with the commenters point and revised the language to reflect this in
this final rule.
    Regarding Sec.  173.166(e)(4)(i), one commenter suggested: ``The
industry feels that the use of returnable packagings has proven quite
safe over the many years of shipping Class 9/UN3268 products, and that
there should be no limitations to the use of returnables that meet the
performance criteria called out in 173.166(e)(4)(A)-(C).'' While we
understand the commenter's point of view, after reviewing the issue, we
have determined to keep the language as is in this final rule.

    Regarding Sec.  173.166(e)(4)(ii), one commenter suggested:
    DOT-SP 13996 allowed for this type of activity--it was designed
to accommodate both returns of production shipments from the OEM's
to the supplier and for sequencers (intermediate handlers) to
receive/open/store/re-pack and ship parts on to the customer.
Without the change suggested here, or something similar, this new
regulation is actually more restrictive than DOT-SP 13996.

    We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in
paragraph (e)(4)(ii) to reflect this in this final rule.

    Regarding Sec.  173.166(e)(5), one commenter suggested:
    Since expiration dates for EX approvals are not required, it is
unclear why specific approvals are being targeted for what we assume
to be re-testing. In order for products to be shipped in packagings
previously approved by the Associate Administrator, neither the
products nor the packagings may be changed. The testing previously
performed and the results would, therefore, not have changed. We
strongly disagree with this restriction, and ask for its removal.

    While we understand the commenters viewpoint, the intent of
paragraph (e)(5) was not to single out specific approvals for re-
testing but to continue to permit previously approved air bag
inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners to remain in
circulation. However, we do recognize the confusion that an end-date
may cause industry and we agree with the commenters point and revised
the language in paragraph (e)(5) to reflect this in this final rule.

    Regarding Sec.  173.166(e)(6), one commenter suggested:
    As noted above, DOT-SP 12332 was intended to be an expansion of
the packaging methods allowed for disposal or recycling. We would
ask that a clear reference to both be included. Additionally, DOT-SP
12332 does not include 1.4G product, so we have excluded the 1.4G/
UN0431 product here as well.

    We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in
paragraph (e)(6) to reflect this in this final rule.

    Regarding Sec.  173.166(e)(6)(i), one commenter suggested:
    When DOT-12332 was originally issued, the inclusion of the steel
drum packaging option was based on testing performed in steel drums
with a void in the top of the drum--no inner packagings, no
cushioning. The void area, in combination with the lid ventilation,
is intended to provide space for the appropriate venting of gases in
the case of a fire without rupture of the drum. Obviously this would
allow for movement of the devices inside the drum if there were
rough handling, but the safety benefit of the void far outweighs
concerns about movement of devices. Movement of devices inside a
steel drum would not constitute a safety hazard--not regarding
spillage or inadvertent operation.

    We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in
paragraph (e)(6)(i) to reflect this in this final rule.

E. Comments on Paragraph (g) of Sec.  173.166

    Paragraph (g) of Sec.  173.166 provides the recordkeeping
requirements for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-
belt pretensioners. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to require record
retention requirement to ensure that a detailed test report of each air
bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is
maintained and available for the useful life of the device. As such,
these records would be used to verify the accuracy and validity of the
tests and classification recommendation. PHMSA received comments in
support of these proposed amendments because these changes would allow
for better accountability of tracking test records. However, commenters
did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in
paragraph (g).
    Regarding Sec.  173.166(g), one commenter suggested: ``While we see
the need for the authorized testing agency to maintain test reports for
a considerable period of time after testing, we feel it should be the
manufacturer's responsibility to keep track of the duration of
manufacture of a design type and maintain the test report for 15 years
beyond manufacture.'' We agree with the commenters point in that a
revision is needed to more clearly articulate a timeline for each
stakeholder's recordkeeping requirements, and revised the language in
paragraph (g) to reflect this in this final rule.

F. Additional Comments Outside of Sec.  173.166

    PHMSA also received some comments that did not directly pertain to
the proposed regulatory text from the NPRM; however, is relevant to the
discussion of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt
pretensioners. While the majority of commenters supported the proposals
in the NPRM, some commenters had suggestions for new regulatory text
not proposed in the NPRM.
Possible Revision to Sec.  171.23(b)(2)

    One commenter suggested:
    To ensure that the exception from including the EX number on the
shipping paper for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or
seatbelt pretensioners is crystal clear for international shipments,
we recommend revising Sec.  171.23(b)(2) to add the following
statement at the end of the paragraph: This requirement does not
apply to Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seatbelt
pretensioners.

    While we do understand the commenters point of view and also strive
to be as clear as possible, we believe the current text in Sec.
171.23(b)(2) is sufficient. We believe that the current language
directing shippers to Sec.  173.166(c) is still appropriate since Sec.
173.166(c)(1) discusses the requirements for 1.4G air bag inflators,
air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners, while Sec.  173.166(c)(2)
excepts Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt
pretensioners from the EX number requirements. Therefore, the text in
Sec.  171.23(b)(2) will remain as currently written.
Possible Revision to Sec.  172.102(c)(1)
    Upon further PHMSA review, we noticed that there was no direct
connection to the exception provided in Sec.  173.166(d)(1) for air bag
inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners that have been
classed as a Division 1.4G and approved by the Associate Administrator
and are installed in a motor vehicle, aircraft, boat or other transport
conveyance or its completed components, such as steering columns or
door panels. To rectify this, we are revising Special Provision 161 in
Sec.  172.102(c)(1) to direct stakeholders to Sec.  173.166(d)(1) so
that they are aware that these installed or completed components are
not subject to the requirements of this subchapter

provided they comply with Sec.  173.166(d)(1).
Possible Revision to Sec.  175.33(a)

    Another commenter suggested:
    We believe revisions in Part 175 are needed to eliminate
misunderstanding related to information required on the NOTOC. We
are aware that PHMSA already believes that for an air carrier, the
EX number for UN3268 need not be shown on the NOTOC. However, the
regulations governing the NOTOC are, by PHMSA's own admission,
ambiguous enough that UPS urges the agency to include a
clarification in any Final Rule for Docket HM-254. Such a revision
is discussed in a March 28, 2011 letter of interpretation (10-0194),
in which PHMSA explains that it did not intend the EX number to be
required in the NOTOC for shipments of UN3268 and mentions a future
rulemaking in which a clarification will be proposed. Because there
are numerous Class 9 Air bag inflators, Air bag modules and Seat
belt pretensioners for which EX numbers have been issued, the HMR
needs to be clear as to whether the EX number is a required part of
the NOTOC. We believe that Docket HM-254 presents the needed
opportunity for making this clarification to the requirements for
the NOTOC. Prompt action is required, because FAA inspectors,
perhaps unaware of PHMSA's view on the matter, have assessed civil
penalties for missing EX numbers on the NOTOC. A simple adjustment
to 49 CFR 175.33 would establish that the EX number for UN3268 is
not required to be displayed on the NOTOC. In order to avoid any
additional misunderstandings, a similar statement should be included
explaining that the word `Recycled' also is not required on the
NOTOC. For example, a new subsection 175.33(a)(12) could be added,
such as the following: (12) For articles classed as UN3268,
notwithstanding the previous assignment of an EX number to any Air
bag inflator, Air bag module or Seat belt pretensioner, the EX
number is not required to be displayed on the notification of pilot-
in-command. For a recycled Air bag inflator, Air bag module or Seat
belt pretensioner assigned to Class 9, the word `Recycled' is not
required to be shown on the notification of pilot-in-command.

    We appreciate the point that the commenter made, but this final
rule specifically provides the exception in Sec.  173.166(c)(2) where
Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners
are excepted from the EX number requirements on shipping papers. This
specific revision to the way Sec.  173.166(c) currently reads makes it
clear that moving forward there are no EX numbers on Class 9 shipping
papers. Therefore, the text in Sec.  175.33(a) will remain as currently
written.

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This final rule is published under the authority of the Federal
Hazardous Materials Transportation Law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. Section
5103(b) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the safe
transportation, including security, of hazardous material in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. This final rule
incorporates the provisions of two special permits regarding air bag
inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners, which will
allow shipments of these hazardous materials more quickly and
efficiently, without compromising safety. Furthermore, section 5120(b)
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that, to the
extent practicable, regulations governing the transportation of
hazardous materials in commerce are consistent with standards adopted
by international authorities.

B. Executive Order 13610, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 12866,
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The final rule is not considered
a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures order
issued by the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034]. However, for
those stakeholders who might be interested, a regulatory impact
assessment (RIA) was developed for this final rule and is available for
review in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
that were established in Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and
Review of September 30, 1993. Executive Order 13563, issued January 18,
2011, notes that our nation's current regulatory system must not only
protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment but also
promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job
creation.\2\ Further, this executive order urges government agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain
flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. In addition, federal
agencies are asked to periodically review existing significant
regulations, retrospectively analyze rules that may be outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal regulatory requirements in accordance
with what has been learned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/18/improving-regulation-and-regulatory-review-executive-order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Order 13610, issued May 10, 2012, urges agencies to
conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether
they remain justified and whether they should be modified or
streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of
new technologies.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-14/pdf/2012-11798.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By building off of each other, these three Executive Orders require
agencies to regulate in the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a
``reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs,'' and to develop regulations that ``impose the least
burden on society.''
    In this final rule, PHMSA is amending the HMR to incorporate
alternatives this agency has permitted under widely used and
longstanding special permits and competent authority approvals with
established safety records that we have determined meet the safety
criteria for inclusion in the HMR. Incorporation of these provisions
into the regulations of general applicability will provide shippers and
carriers with additional flexibility to comply with established safety
requirements, thereby reducing transportation costs and increasing
productivity. In addition, the final rule will reduce the paperwork
burden on industry and this agency resulting from putting an end to the
need for renewal applications for special permits. Taken together, the
provisions of this final rule will promote the continued safe
transportation of hazardous materials while reducing transportation
costs for the industry and administrative costs for the agency.
    PHMSA considered five potential regulatory alternatives.
     Alternative 1: No Action. Under this option, PHMSA would
continue existing requirements for Special Permits to air bag
inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners by taking no
action. However, PHMSA believes that there are considerable benefits to
taking action provided that a high level of safety is maintained.
Furthermore, all costs and benefits are relative to this option.
     Alternative 2: Expanding Provisions of DOT-SP 13996. In
incorporating the provisions of DOT-SP 13996, the final rule authorizes
the use of certain types of packaging, as long as the transportation is
conducted by private carrier or contract carrier. One alternative would
be to extend that packaging options to common carriers

as well. However, while this option may grant additional regulatory
relief to industry beyond that being provided by the final rule, we
believe that it does so at the expense of safety and is, therefore, not
viable.
     Alternative 3: Expanding Provisions of DOT-SP 12332. In
incorporating the provisions of DOT-SP 12332, the final rule authorizes
the use of certain types of packaging but limits that option to
products between transported domestically on highways. A second
alternative would be to allow such packaging to be used when such
products are transported by air or rail. However, while this option may
grant additional regulatory relief to industry beyond that being
provided by the final rule, we believe that it does so at the expense
of safety and is, therefore, not viable.
     Alternative 4: Relaxing New Packaging Options. The new
packaging options being permitted in this final rule could be further
relaxed, or industry could be permitted to adhere to voluntary
packaging standards for Class 9 airbags and seat-belt pretensioners.
However, while this option may grant additional regulatory relief to
industry beyond that being provided by the final rule, we believe that
it does so at the expense of safety and is, therefore, not viable.
     Alternative 5: Incorporate Two Special Permits and Reduce
Burdensome/Extraneous Provisions. Under this option, PHMSA would
incorporate DOT-SP 13996 and DOT-SP 12332, and streamline the
classification process for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules,
and seat-belt pretensioners. More specifically, the revisions include
five regulatory initiatives: (1) Modifies the approval process and
documentation requirements associated with classifying air bag
inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners; (2)
incorporates provisions of DOT-SP 12332 into the HMR by excepting Class
9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners
assigned to UN3268 from the requirement to provide the EX number on the
shipping paper; (3) a simple clarification that a safety restraint
device that is installed in a vehicle or vehicle component is not
subject to the HMR; (4) incorporates provisions of DOT-SP 13996 into
the HMR by authorizing the use of non-DOT specification, reusable
containers manufactured from high-strength plastic, metal, or other
suitable material, or other dedicated handling devices, for
transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt
pretensioners; and (5) permits several additional types of packaging to
maintain alignment with the 17th revised edition of the UN Model
Regulations.
    The final rule adopts Alternative 5, ``Incorporate Two Special
Permits and Reduce Burdensome/Extraneous Provisions.'' By amending the
HMR with these requirements, PHMSA will be incorporating the provisions
contained in two widely used or longstanding special permits that have
established safety records. These revisions are intended to eliminate
the need for future renewal requests, thus reducing paperwork burdens
and facilitating commerce while maintaining an equivalent level of
safety.
Current Compliance Costs
    As noted previously, current compliance costs consist primarily of
paperwork requirements for both industry and the Government. Paperwork
burden is encountered in three different areas: in the class approval
process, in the granting of special permits, and in providing the
required information on shipping papers.
    Based upon a review of our special permits and general approvals
databases, it is estimated that PHMSA reviews approximately 200
applications per year for classification approvals, other general
approvals, and special permits associated with Class 9 air bags
inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. Assuming that
PHSMA spends $414 per application,\4\ it's estimated the annual cost to
the Government to be $82,800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This figure is based on an estimate provided by the Special
Permits and Approvals Division regarding the cost of reviewing
special permits for bulk explosives (email dated July 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Industry also incurs a cost for preparing and submitting these
applications, as well as retaining records. According to the Institute
for the Makers of Explosives, industry spends approximately $825 to
apply for each renewal, party status, or modification of a special
permit that deals with the transportation of bulk explosives using
multipurpose bulk trucks. Using this figure as a proxy for the cost to
industry for preparing and submitting applications regarding air bag
inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners, it's estimated
the annual cost to the automobile industry to be $165,000. Grantees are
currently required to retain a copy of their application and all
supporting documentation, but these recordkeeping costs are assumed to
be negligible; even at 1 cent per page per year and 100 pages of
documentation, such costs would only amount to $200 per year.
    The biggest cost to industry is assumed to be the cost of verifying
and then transcribing the EX number on shipping papers. In its
petition, NAAHAC estimated this cost to be approximately $890K per
year.
Timeframe for the Analysis
    PHMSA estimates that the economic effects of this rulemaking, once
finalized and adopted, will be sustained for many years into the
future. Notwithstanding this, because of the difficulty of and
uncertainty associated with forecasting industry effects into the far
future, PHMSA assumes a 10-year time period to quantify and monetize
the costs and benefits and demonstrate the net effects of the proposal.
Costs of the Final Rule
    Costs to the public and PHMSA accrue from the factors associated
with the requirements set forth in the regulations and the enforcement
methods and procedures adopted by the Federal Government for carrying
out the objectives of the rules and regulations. Examples of costs
include (but are not limited to): Goods and services required to comply
with the regulation; measures of productivity, such as losses related
to work time; increases in incident-related death, illness, or
disability that can be attributed to the rule; and payments to
standard-setting organizations for the standards.
    In this analysis, we consider two different costs of the rule. The
primary cost is likely to be the increased risk associated with
streamlining the class approval process for air bags and seat-belt
pretensioners. Removing DOT's review of the explosives lab test results
increases the chance that a product that should be designated as Class
1.4 is designated as Class 9. It is difficult to quantify this cost,
but we do not believe it to be significant for two reasons. A review of
PHMSA's approvals database finds that PHMSA has denied or rejected only
1.7 percent of UN3268 approval applications it has received. These
denials include requests for consideration that fall outside the scope
of the test result and only 0.5 percent was denied for technical
reasons. Therefore, the chance of an incorrect class assignment is
likely to be less than 0.5 percent. Second, a review of PHMSA's
incident database shows that there have only been four incidents
involving properly packaged and declared UN3268 air bags or seat-belt
pretensioners since 1996. Minimal damages were reported for all four
incidents. Therefore, even if a product

is incorrectly assigned as Class 9, the risks associated with it will
be small.
    The other costs associated with the rule are negligible due to
minor revisions to the recordkeeping requirements. People who test and
examine air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners
will be required to provide the manufacturer a detailed report on each
tested design. Key components of the report include a description of
the design, an explanation of the tests performed and results, and a
recommended classification for tested designs. The manufacturer must
retain the report for as long as the design is in production and for 15
years thereafter. Additionally, the manufacturer must make the report
available to DOT officials upon request. This record retention
requirement ensures that a detailed test report of each air bag
inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is
maintained and available for the useful life of the device. These
records may be used to verify the accuracy and validity of the tests
and classification recommendation.
    It should be noted that PHMSA currently requires industry to retain
a copy of the classification application, all supporting documentation,
and a copy of the approval, as well to make such materials available to
DOT upon request. So while there may be a marginal increase in the
amount of documentation retained, we believe the cost will be
negligible.
Benefits of the Final Rule
    Typically the benefits of rules are derived from their health and
safety factors. Since the Federal Regulatory Agencies often design
regulation to reduce risks to life, evaluation of the benefits of
reducing fatality risks can be the key part of the analysis. Examples
of benefits in the form of reduced expenditures include (but are not
limited to): Private-sector savings, Government administrative savings,
gains in work time, and reduced costs of compliance. In this case, most
of the benefits from the rule will be derived from reduced compliance
costs and Government workload.
    As discussed previously, PHMSA is currently incurring an estimated
$82,800 per year to process and review special permits and approvals
associated with Class 9 air bags inflators, air bag modules, and seat-
belt pretensioners. As shown above, industry incurs an estimated
$165,000 per year to prepare and submit applications for special
permits and approvals, and $890,000 per year to provide the EX number
on shipping papers. Combined, these costs total $1,137,800 per year.
Since the objective of the final rule is to eliminate these costs, the
benefits that can be achieved are estimated to be $1,137,800 per year.
    It should be noted that reductions in the costs of transporting air
bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners could be
passed on to automobile manufacturers, which would give rise to
additional demand and lead to further implementation of the technology
within the motor vehicle fleet. Such a possibility would presumably
contribute to a reduction in injuries and fatalities, a benefit we are
not able to quantify but believe to be small, given the small savings
being realized.
Summary of Discounted Net Benefits of the Final Rule
    The net benefits of the final rule are calculated by subtracting
the costs from the benefits. Since the costs are assumed to be
negligible, the first-year net benefits are estimated to be $1.14
million. Based upon the market analysis presented in Section 2.2 of the
RIA, we assume these benefits will grow at an annual average rate of 5
percent.\5\ Calculating the present value of this net benefit stream
over a 10-year forecast horizon produces an estimate that ranges
between $10 million and $12 million at 7 percent and 3 percent discount
rates, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In its recent report, ``Global Automotive Airbag Market
2011-2015,'' TechNavio is forecasting that the global airbag market
will grow at a compounded annual average annual growth rate of 11.54
percent. Given the maturity of the airbag market in the United
States, we believe the growth rate in the U.S. market will be less
than the global growth rate and therefore assumed 5 percent for the
U.S. market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, in this rulemaking effort we evaluated alternative
proposals and ultimately chose to finalize the amendments presented in
the NPRM. The amendments from this final rule promote retrospective
analysis to modify and streamline existing requirements that are
outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.

C. Executive Order 13132

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''), and
the President's memorandum on ``Preemption'' published in the Federal
Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). This final rule would preempt
State, local, and Indian tribe requirements but does not amend any
regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the
relationship between the national government and the States, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of
Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    The Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-
5128, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125 (b))
that preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on the
following subjects:
    (1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous
materials;
    (2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous materials;
    (3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number,
contents, and placement of those documents;
    (4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; and
    (5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance,
recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container
represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in
transporting hazardous material.
    This final rule addresses subject areas (1), (3), and (5), above.
With the adoption of this final rule, this rulemaking would preempt any
State, local, or Indian tribe requirements concerning these subjects
unless the non-Federal requirements are ``substantively the same'' as
the Federal requirements. Furthermore, this final rule is necessary to
update, clarify, and provide relief from regulatory requirements.
    Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at Sec.
5125 (b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the
covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the Federal
Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date
may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of
this final rule and not later than two years after the date of
issuance. PHMSA has determined that the effective date of Federal
preemption for these requirements will be one year from the date of
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.

D. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'').

Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Procedures and Policies

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines the rule is not expected to have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final
rule will not impose increased compliance costs on the regulated
industry. Rather, the final rule incorporates current approval
procedures for the transportation of air bag inflators, air bag
modules, and seat-belt pretensioners into the HMR and provides
additional flexibility for persons seeking to obtain such approval. In
addition, the rulemaking excepts certain shipments from the specific
documentation requirements of the HMR; these exception provisions will
increase shipping options and reduce shipment costs. Overall, this
final rule should reduce the compliance burden on the regulated
industry without compromising transportation safety. Therefore, we
certify that this final rulemaking will not have a significant or
negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and
in reality should provide positive economic benefits (i.e., reduced
compliance burden) for those small entities.
    Consideration of alternative proposals for small businesses. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies to establish exceptions and
differing compliance standards for small businesses, where it is
possible to do so and still meet the objectives of applicable
regulatory statutes. In the case of hazardous materials transportation,
it is not possible to establish exceptions or differing standards and
still accomplish our safety objectives.
    The impact of this final rule is not expected to be significant.
The amendments are generally intended to provide relief to shippers,
carriers, and packaging manufactures and testers, including small
entities. This relief will provide positive economic benefits to
shippers, carriers, and packaging manufactures and testers, including
small entities however; these benefits are not at a level that can be
considered economically significant.
    Therefore, this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking has
been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (``Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking'') and DOT's
procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts of draft rules on
small entities are properly considered.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    PHMSA currently has an approved information collection under Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2137-0051, entitled
``Rulemaking, Special Permits, and Preemption Requirements,'' with an
expiration date of April 30, 2014. This final rule will result in a
decrease in the annual burden and costs under OMB Control Number 2137-
0051 due to amendments to incorporate provisions contained in certain
widely-used or longstanding special permits that have an established
safety record.
    PHMSA also has an approved information collection under OMB Control
Number 2137-0557, entitled ``Approvals for Hazardous Materials,'' with
an expiration date of May 31, 2014. While this final rule will result
in a slight increase in the annual burden and cost to OMB Control
Number 2137-0557 for the minor recordkeeping requirements under Sec.
173.166, this final rule will result in an overall decrease in the
annual burden and cost to OMB Control Number 2137-0557 due to the
larger cost savings of reducing the number of approvals required by
testers of air bags inflators and air bag modules.
    PHMSA has an approved information collection under OMB Control
Number 2137-0034, entitled ``Hazardous Materials Shipping Papers and
Emergency Response.'' This final rule will result in a decrease in the
annual burden and cost due to shippers no longer being required to put
the EX numbers on shipping papers for air bag modules.
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to
respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB
and displays a valid OMB control number. Section 1320.8(d), title 5,
Code of Federal Regulations requires that PHMSA provide interested
members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment
on information and recordkeeping requests.
    This final rule identifies revised information collection requests
that PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval based on the requirements in
this final rule. PHMSA has developed burden estimates to reflect
changes in this rule and estimates that the information collection and
recordkeeping burdens would be revised as follows:
    OMB Control No. 2137-0051:
    Decrease in Annual Number of Respondents: 45
    Decrease in Annual Responses: 45
    Decrease in Annual Burden Hours: 360
    Decrease in Annual Burden Costs: $18,000.00

    OMB Control No. 2137-0557:
    Decrease in Annual Number of Respondents: 207
    Decrease in Annual Responses: 207
    Decrease in Annual Burden Hours: 569.25
    Decrease in Annual Burden Costs: $11,385.00

    OMB Control No. 2137-0034:
    Decrease in Annual Number of Respondents: 207
    Decrease in Annual Responses: 15,500
    Decrease in Annual Burden Hours: 285.33
    Decrease in Annual Burden Costs: $5,706.60

    PHMSA specifically requested comments on the information collection
and recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and
maintaining these requirements for approval under the proposed rule;
and we did not receive any comments disputing these numbers. Therefore,
we are proceeding as is with these numbers.

G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of
$141.3 million or more to either state, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.

I. Environmental Assessment

    The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375,
requires that

federal agencies consider the consequences of major Federal actions and
prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations require federal agencies to conduct an environmental
review considering: (1) The need for the action; (2) alternatives to
the action; (3) probable environmental impacts of the action and
alternatives; and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the
consideration process (40 CFR 1508.9(b)).
Description of Action
Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0201 (HM-254), Final Rule
    Transportation of hazardous materials in commerce is subject to
requirements in the HMR, issued under authority of Federal hazardous
materials transportation law, codified at 49 U.S.C. 5001 et seq. To
facilitate the safe and efficient transportation of hazardous materials
in international commerce, the HMR provide that both domestic and
international shipments of hazardous materials may be offered for
transportation and transported under provisions of the international
regulations.
Purpose and Need
    Promote regulatory relief for the classification and shipment of
air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners while
maintaining safety. Respond to rulemaking petitions and provide
efficiencies available to special permit holders to the air bag
inflator, air bag module, and seat-belt pretensioner industry.
Alternatives Considered
    No Action Alternative (1): Leave the previously-listed provisions
in the HMR as is.
    Alternative (2): Go forward with the proposed amendments to the HMR
in the NPRM.
    Our goal is to update, clarify and provide relief from certain
existing regulatory requirements to promote safer transportation
practices, eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements, finalize
outstanding petitions for rulemaking, and facilitate international
commerce. Therefore, we rejected the no-action alternative and selected
alternative 2.
Environmental Consequences
    Hazardous materials are substances that may pose a threat to public
safety or the environment during transportation because of their
physical, chemical, or nuclear properties. The hazardous materials
regulatory system is a risk management system that is prevention
oriented and focused on identifying a hazard and reducing the
probability and quantity of a hazardous materials release. Hazardous
materials are categorized by hazard analysis and experience into hazard
classes and packing groups. The regulations require each shipper to
classify a material in accordance with these hazard classes and packing
groups; the process of classifying a hazardous material is itself a
form of hazard analysis. Further, the regulations require the shipper
to communicate the material's hazards by identifying the hazard class,
packing group, and proper shipping name on shipping papers and with
labels on packages and placards on transport vehicles. Thus, the
shipping paper, labels, and placards communicate the most significant
findings of the shipper's hazard analysis. Most hazardous materials are
assigned to one of three packing groups based upon its degree of
hazard, from a high hazard Packing Group I material to a low hazard
Packing Group III material. The quality, damage resistance, and
performance standards for the packagings authorized for the hazardous
materials in each packing group are appropriate for the hazards of the
material transported.
    Under the HMR, hazardous materials are transported by aircraft,
vessel, rail, and highway. The potential for environmental damage or
contamination exists when packages of hazardous materials are involved
in transportation incidents. The need for hazardous materials to
support essential services means transportation of highly hazardous
materials is unavoidable. However, these shipments frequently move
through densely populated or environmentally sensitive areas where the
consequences of an incident could be loss of life, serious injury, or
significant environmental damage. The ecosystems that could be affected
by a hazardous materials release during transportation include
atmospheric, aquatic, terrestrial, and vegetal resources (for example,
wildlife habitats). For the most part, the adverse environmental
impacts associated with releases of most hazardous materials are short
term impacts that can be reduced or eliminated through prompt clean up
and decontamination of the accident scene.
    When developing potential regulatory requirements, PHMSA evaluates
those requirements to consider the environmental impact of each
amendment. Specifically, PHMSA evaluates the: (1) Risk of release and
resulting environmental impact; (2) risk to human safety, including any
risk to first responders; (3) longevity of the packaging; and (4) if
the proposed regulation would be carried out in a defined geographic
area, the resources, especially any sensitive areas, and how they could
be impacted by any proposed regulations.
    In this final rule, PHMSA revised the regulations to incorporate
the terms of two special permits into the HMR. The revisions in this
final rule involve the transportation of air bag inflators, air bag
modules, or seat-belt pretensioners that have been classed as UN3268,
miscellaneous hazardous materials (Class 9) and UN0431, Articles,
pyrotechnic for technical purposes, Division 1.4G.
    The Class 9 classification indicates that the material presents a
hazard during transportation (but which does not meet the definition of
any other hazard class in the HMR), a Class 9 material ranks last in
all items regulated by the U.S. DOT in terms of hazard precedence and
risk. The revisions in this final rule reflect that fact and will
reduce the unnecessary burdens on not just the offerors of these UN3268
materials, but reduce PHMSA's own administrative costs from reviewing
unnecessary approvals and special permits.
    A Class 1 classification indicates that the material is any
substance or article, including a device, which is designed to function
by explosion (i.e., an extremely rapid release of gas and heat) or
which, by chemical reaction within itself, is able to function in a
similar manner even if not designed to function by explosion. The term
explosive may also include a pyrotechnic substance or article,
depending on its characteristics. The unique properties of Class 1
materials require them to be classed and approved in accordance with
Sec.  173.56 of the HMR. The revisions in this final rule reflect that
fact and will still require Division 1.4G's to be classified by
explosive test labs and submitted to PHMSA for review and issuance of
EX number approvals.
    The primary environmental risk associated with streamlining the
class approval process for air bags and seat-belt pretensioners is
misclassification of devices that should be designated as Class 1.4G
could be designated as Class 9. Removing DOT's review of the explosives
lab test results increases this risk. It is difficult to quantify this
risk, but we do not believe it to be significant for two reasons. A
review of PHMSA's approvals database finds that PHMSA has denied or
rejected only 1.7 percent of UN3268 approval applications it has

received. These denials include requests for consideration that fall
outside the scope of the test result and only 0.5 percent was denied
for technical reasons. Therefore, the chance of an incorrect class
assignment is likely to be less than 0.5 percent. Second, a review of
PHMSA's incident database shows that there have only been four
incidents involving properly packaged and declared UN3268 air bags or
seat-belt pretensioners since 1996. Minimal damages were reported for
all four incidents. Therefore, even if a product is incorrectly
assigned as Class 9, the risks associated with it will be small.
    In considering the potential environmental impacts of the final
action, PHMSA does not anticipate that the incorporation of the listed
special permits will result in any significant impact on the human
environment because the process through which special permits are
issued requires the applicant to demonstrate that the alternative
transportation method or packaging proposed provides an equivalent
level of safety as that provided in the HMR. PHMSA requested that
commenters comment on foreseeable environmental impacts or risk
associated with the incorporation of the proposed special permits, and
we received no comments suggesting PHMSA overlooked any.
Agencies Consulted
    This final rule would affect some PHMSA stakeholders, including
hazardous materials shippers and carriers by highway, rail, and vessel,
as well as manufacturers and test labs. PHMSA sought comment on the
environmental assessment contained in the March 26, 2012, NPRM
published under Docket PHMSA-2010-0201 [77 FR 17394] (HM-254) however,
PHMSA did not receive any comments on the environmental assessment
contained in that rulemaking. In addition, PHMSA sought comment from
the following modal partners:
     Federal Aviation Administration
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
     Federal Railroad Administration
     United States Coast Guard
    PHMSA did not receive any adverse comments on the amendments
adopted in this final rule from these Federal Agencies.
Conclusion
    PHMSA is making numerous amendments to the HMR in response to a
petition for rulemaking and incorporation of two special permits. The
amendments adopted in this final rule are intended to update, clarify,
or provide relief from certain existing regulatory requirements to
promote safer transportation practices; eliminate unnecessary
regulatory requirements; finalize outstanding petitions for rulemaking;
facilitate international commerce; and, in general, make the
requirements easier to understand and follow.
    Given that this rulemaking amends the HMR to incorporate provisions
contained in certain widely-used or longstanding special permits that
have an established safety record, these changes in regulation should
in fact increase safety and environmental protections. Furthermore,
while the net environmental impact of this rule will be positive, we
believe there will be no significant environmental impacts associated
with this final rule.

J. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) which may be
viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-04-11/pdf/00-8505.pdf.

K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under E.O. 13609, agencies must consider whether the impacts
associated with significant variations between domestic and
international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the
ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
    Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465),
prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging
in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements,
Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international
standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic
objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude
imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards
in order to protect the safety of the American public, and we have
assessed the effects of the final rule to ensure that it does not cause
unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. In this final rule, PHMSA is
revising the HMR to align with international standards by: permitting
several additional types of packaging to maintain alignment with the
17th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations. This amendment is
intended to enhance the safety of international hazardous materials
transportation through an increased level of industry compliance,
ensure the smooth flow of hazardous materials from their points of
origin to their points of destination, and facilitate effective
emergency response in the event of a hazardous materials incident.
Accordingly, this rulemaking is consistent with E.O. 13609 and PHMSA's
obligations under the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.

L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g. specification of
materials, test methods, or performance requirements) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. This final
rule does not involve a technical standard; therefore, there are no
issues in this rulemaking that comprise the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 172

    Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,
Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 173

    Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers,
Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Uranium.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA is amending 49 CFR Chapter
I as follows:

PART 172--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS, AND SECURITY PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 172 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81, 1.96 and
1.97.

0
2. In Sec.  172.102 in paragraph (c)(1), special provision 161 is
revised to read as follows:

Sec.  172.102  Special provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    161 For domestic transport, air bag inflators, air bag modules or
seat-belt pretensioners that meet the criteria for a Division 1.4G
explosive must be transported using the description, ``Articles,
pyrotechnic for technical purposes,'' UN0431. See Sec.  173.166(d)(1)
of this subchapter for an exception regarding air bag inflators, air
bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners that are installed in a motor
vehicle, aircraft, boat or other transport conveyance or its completed
components, such as steering columns or door panels.
* * * * *

PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND
PACKAGINGS

0
3. The authority citation for part 173 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81, 1.96 and
1.97.

0
4. Section 173.166 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  173.166  Air bag inflators, air bag modules and seat-belt
pretensioners.

    (a) Definitions. An air bag inflator (consisting of a casing
containing an igniter, a booster material, a gas generant and, in some
cases, a pressure receptacle (cylinder)) is a gas generator used to
inflate an air bag in a supplemental restraint system in a motor
vehicle. An air bag module is the air bag inflator plus an inflatable
bag assembly. A seat-belt pretensioner contains similar hazardous
materials and is used in the operation of a seat-belt restraining
system in a motor vehicle.
    (b) Classification. (1) An air bag inflator, air bag module, or
seat-belt pretensioner, excluding those which contain flammable or
toxic gases or mixtures thereof, may be classed as Class 9 (UN3268) if
the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner, or if
more than a single air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt
pretensioner is involved then the representative of the maximum
parameters of each design type, is examined and successfully tested by
a person or agency who is authorized by the Associate Administrator to
perform examination and testing of explosives under Sec.  173.56(b)(1),
and who:
    (i) Does not manufacture or market explosives, air bag inflators,
air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners, is not owned in whole or
in part, or is not financially dependent upon any entity that
manufactures or markets explosives, air bag inflators, air bag modules,
or seat-belt pretensioners;
    (ii) Performs all examination and testing in accordance with the
applicable requirements as specified in Special Provision 160 (see
Sec.  172.102 of this subchapter); and
    (iii) Maintains records in accordance with paragraph (g) of this
section.
    (iv) By adhering to all the provisions specified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, the Class 9 (UN3268) air bag inflator, air bag
module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is not required to be
submitted to the Associate Administrator for approval or assigned an EX
number;
    (2) An air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner
may be classed as Division 1.4G if the maximum parameters of each
design type has been examined and successfully tested by a person or
agency who is authorized by the Associate Administrator to perform such
examination and testing of explosives under Sec.  173.56(b)(1). For
domestic transport, air bag inflators, air bag modules or seat-belt
pretensioners that meet the criteria for a Division 1.4G explosive must
be transported using the description, ``UN0431, Articles, pyrotechnic
for technical purposes'' as specified in Special Provision 161 (see
Sec.  172.102 of this subchapter). Further, as a Class 1 explosive, the
manufacturer must submit to the Associate Administrator a report of the
examination and assignment of a recommended shipping description,
division, and compatibility group, and if the Associate Administrator
finds the approval request meets the regulatory criteria, the explosive
may be approved in writing and assigned an EX number; or
    (3) The manufacturer has submitted an application, including a
classification issued by the competent authority of a foreign
government to the Associate Administrator, and received written
notification from the Associate Administrator that the device has been
approved for transportation and assigned an EX number.
    (c) EX numbers. (1) When an air bag inflator, air bag module, or
seat-belt pretensioner is classed and approved as a Division 1.4G and
offered for transportation, the shipping paper must contain the EX
number or product code for each approved inflator, module, or
pretensioner in association with the basic description required by
Sec.  172.202(a) of this subchapter. Product codes must be traceable to
the specific EX number assigned to the inflator, module, or
pretensioner by the Associate Administrator. Further, if the EX number
or product code is contained on the shipping paper then it is not
required to be marked on the outside package.
    (2) An air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner
when classed as a Class 9 (UN3268) under the terms of paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, is excepted from the EX number requirements of this
paragraph (c).
    (d) Exceptions. (1) An air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-
belt pretensioner that is classed as a Class 9 (UN3268) under the terms
of paragraph (b)(1) of this section and is installed in a motor
vehicle, aircraft, boat or other transport conveyance or its completed
components, such as steering columns or door panels, is not subject to
the requirements of this subchapter. An air bag inflator, air bag
module, or seat-belt pretensioner that has been classed as a Division
1.4G and approved by the Associate Administrator and is installed in a
motor vehicle, aircraft, boat or other transport conveyance or its
completed components, such as steering columns or door panels, is not
subject to the requirements of this subchapter.
    (2) An air bag module containing an inflator that has been
previously approved by the Associate Administrator for transportation
is not required to be submitted for further examination or approval.
For classifications granted after July 30, 2013, if the Class 9
designation for the inflator is contingent upon packaging or other
special means specified by the authorized testing agency, the modules
must be tested and certified separately to determine if they can be
shipped as ``UN3268, Air bag modules, 9, PG III''.
    (3) An air bag module containing an inflator that has previously
been approved by the Associate Administrator as a Division 2.2 material
is not required to be submitted for

further examination to be reclassed as a Class 9 material.
    (4) Shipments to recycling or waste disposal facilities. When
offered for domestic transportation by highway, rail freight, cargo
vessel or cargo aircraft, a serviceable air bag inflator, air bag
module, or seat-belt pretensioner classed as either Class 9 (UN3268) or
Division 1.4G removed from a motor vehicle that was manufactured as
required for use in the United States may be offered for transportation
and transported without compliance with the shipping paper requirement
prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. However, when these
articles are shipped to a recycling facility, the word ``Recycled''
must be entered on the shipping paper immediately after the basic
description prescribed in Sec.  172.202 of this subchapter. No more
than one device is authorized in the packaging prescribed in paragraph
(e)(1), (2) or (3) of this section. The device must be cushioned and
secured within the package to prevent movement during transportation.
    (e) Packagings. Rigid, outer packagings, meeting the general
packaging requirements of part 173 are authorized as follows.
Additionally, the UN specification packagings listed in paragraphs
(e)(1), (2), and (3) of this section must meet the packaging
specification and performance requirements of part 178 of this
subchapter at the Packing Group III performance level. The packagings
must be designed and constructed to prevent movement of the articles
and inadvertent activation. Further, if the Class 9 designation is
contingent upon packaging specified by the authorized testing agency,
shipments of the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt
pretensioner must be in compliance with the prescribed packaging.
    (1) 1A2, 1B2, 1N2, 1D, 1G, or 1H2 drums.
    (2) 3A2, 3B2, or 3H2 jerricans.
    (3) 4A, 4B, 4N, 4C1, 4C2, 4D, 4F, 4G, 4H1, or 4H2 boxes.
    (4) Reusable high-strength containers or dedicated handling
devices. (i) Reusable containers manufactured from high-strength
plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling
devices are authorized for shipment of air bag inflators, air bag
modules, and seat-belt pretensioners from a manufacturing facility to
the assembly facility, subject to the following conditions:
    (A) The gross weight of the containers or handling devices may not
exceed 1000 kg (2205 pounds). Containers or handling devices must
provide adequate support to allow stacking at least three units high
with no resultant damage;
    (B) If not completely enclosed by design, the container or handling
device must be covered with plastic, fiberboard, metal, or other
suitable material. The covering must be secured to the container by
banding or other comparable methods; and
    (C) Internal dunnage must be sufficient to prevent movement of the
devices within the container.
    (ii) Reusable containers manufactured from high-strength plastic,
metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling devices
are authorized for shipment of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and
seat-belt pretensioners only to, between, and from, intermediate
handling locations, provided they meet the conditions specified in
paragraphs (e)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of this section and:
    (A) The packages may be opened and re-packed by an intermediate
handler as long as no modifications or changes are made to the
packagings; and
    (B) Transportation must be made by private or contract carrier.
    (5) Packagings which were previously authorized in an approval
issued by the Associate Administrator may continue to be used, provided
a copy of the approval is maintained while such packaging is being
used.
    (6) Devices removed from a vehicle. When removed from, or were
intended to be used in, a motor vehicle that was manufactured as
required for use in the United States and offered for domestic
transportation by highway to Recycling or Waste Disposal facilities, a
serviceable air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner
classed as Class 9 UN3268 may be offered for transportation and
transported in the following additional packaging:
    (i) Specification and non-specification steel drums with a wall and
lid thickness not less than 20 gauge. The lid must be securely affixed
with a lever-locking or bolted-ring assembly. The lid of the drum must
provide ventilation of the drum contents in a fire. The drum may be
filled with any combination of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or
seat-belt pretensioner devices to a capacity not greater than fifty
(50) percent of the drum's total volume. In addition, inner packagings
or cushioning may not be used to fill the void space; or
    (ii) Outer packaging consisting of 4H2 solid plastic boxes or non-
specification rugged reusable plastic outer packaging and inner static-
resistant plastic bags or trays. If not completely enclosed by design,
the container or handling device must be covered with plastic,
fiberboard, metal or other suitable material. The covering must be
secured to the container by banding or other comparable methods. The
articles must be packed to prevent movement within the container during
transportation.
    (f) Labeling. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  172.402 of
this subchapter, each package or handling device must display a CLASS 9
label. Additional labeling is not required when the package contains no
hazardous materials other than the devices.
    (g) Recordkeeping requirements. (1) Following the examination of
each new design type classed as a Class 9 in accordance with paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, the person that conducted the examination must
prepare a test report and provide the test report to the manufacturer
of the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner. At
a minimum, the test report must contain the following information:
    (i) Name and address of the test facility;
    (ii) Name and address of the applicant;
    (iii) Manufacturer of the device. For a foreign manufacturer, the
U.S. agent or importer must be identified;
    (iv) A test report number, drawing of the device, and description
of the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner in
sufficient detail to ensure that the test report is traceable (e.g. a
unique product identifier) to a specific inflator design;
    (v) The tests conducted and the results; and
    (vi) A certification that the air bag inflator, air bag module, or
seat-belt pretensioner is classed as a Class 9 (UN3268).
    (2) For at least fifteen (15) years after testing, a copy of each
test report must be maintained by the authorizing testing agency. For
as long as any air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt
pretensioner design is being manufactured, and for at least fifteen
(15) years thereafter, a copy of each test report must be maintained by
the manufacturer of the product.
    (3) Test reports must be made available to a representative of the
Department upon request.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 25, 2013, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Cynthia L. Quarterman,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-18263 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P