Interpretation Response #16-0072 ([CETECOM Japan K.K.] [Mr. Karsten Koller])
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name: CETECOM Japan K.K.
Individual Name: Mr. Karsten Koller
Country: JP
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
Mr. Karsten Koller
Specialist, Certification Department
CETECOM Japan K.K.
Shin - Yokohama Business Center Building 4F
3-2-6 Shin-Yokohama, Kohoku-ku
Yokohama 222-0033, Japan
Reference No. 16-0072
Dear Mr. Koller:
This letter is in response to your April 21 and May 2, 2016, emails requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) applicable to classification testing of Class 9 seat belt pretensioners. Specifically, you ask how the design type testing requirements in § 173.166 apply to the scenarios you provided. We have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:
Q1. You provide several examples of packaging patterns where between 1 and 10 pretensioners are contained in either cardboard, plastic, or metal boxes or cartons. You ask whether the “bonfire” test may be performed on only the packaging pattern containing the most pretensioners or whether all variations must be tested.
A1. Section 173.166(b) permits certain safety devices, including seat belt pretensioners, to be classed as Class 9 (UN3268) provided a representative of each safety device design type is tested in accordance with this paragraph by an authorized person or testing agency, and the testing requirements specified in special provision 160 (see § 172.102). Special provision 160 requires articles to be tested in accordance with Test Series 6(c) of the United Nations (UN) Manual of Tests and Criteria. The authorized examining agency should be provided with information about the parameters of the article design and the intended packaging arrangements in order to determine which article(s) and packaging must be tested. If, based upon the outcome of the test results, the testing agency determines that the classification is dependent upon a specific packaging arrangement or quantity; it must be clearly indicated in the test agency report and transportation of these devices must be as specified within the report. If not dependent upon the packaging, then any of the authorized packagings for safety devices specified in § 173.166(e) may be used for transport.
Q2. You provide a scenario where Company A designs and manufactures seat belt pretensioners and provides their design to Company B to manufacture the same design. You ask whether Company A’s test report may be used for both companies.
A2. The answer is no. Under § 173.56, energetic materials made by a different manufacturer meet the definition of new explosives, and therefore a pretensioner made by Company B is also ineligible to be classed by comparison to pretensioners made by Company A under §173.166. For safety devices which are manufactured by the same company at multiple facilities, please see the enclosed January 5, 2014 letter from Mr. Shane C. Kelley to Mr. Mark Ludwikowski, Esq. (Ref. No.: 14-0047; copy enclosed).
Q3. You ask whether there are any exceptions from the requirements in § 173.166 for special circumstances, involving a one-time shipment of safety devices.
A3. The answer is no. Section 173.166 applies to single shipments of safety devices. However, special permits may authorize relief from any requirement in the HMR, provided the applicant demonstrates an equivalent level of safety to that intended by the regulation. To apply, you must submit an application to the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety in conformance with the requirements prescribed in 49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B. You may obtain information on the special permit application process from our website at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/sp-a, or by calling PHMSA's Approvals and Permits Division at (202) 366-4511.
Q4. You ask for confirmation of your understanding that classification of safety devices by an authorized test lab under the new requirements in § 173.166(b)(1) may apply to several similar products (within a “design type”), and that classification testing of type number is not required.
A4. Your understanding is correct. Section 173.166 of the HMR was recently revised in a final rule published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2013 [78 FR 45880 (HM-254)]. This final rule provides an exception from the requirements for U.S. DOT approval (i.e. EX number) for air bag inflators, air bag modules or seat-belt pretensioners (UN3268) that were examined and successfully tested by a person or agency who is authorized to do so by the Associate Administrator under the requirements of § 173.56(b)(1). Paragraph 173.166(b)(1) specifies that “safety devices, excluding those which contain flammable or toxic gases or mixtures thereof, may be classed as Class 9 (UN3268) if the safety device (or if more than a single safety device is involved then the representative of the maximum parameters of each design type) meets the requirements in 173.166(b)(1). Therefore, a classification made under this paragraph may be valid for seat-belt pretensioners with different part or product numbers as long as they fall within the same design type.
The parameters of the entire design type must be included within the report issued by the examining agency, or on a drawing referenced within the report issued by the examining agency.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division