{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0206","title":"Climate Controlled Containers, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-12-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0206 response to Climate Controlled Containers, Inc. concerning 173.159.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0206.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0206.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0206","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080206.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Ave.. S E\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. Ken Broussard\nPresident\nClimate Controlled Containers, Inc.\nP.O. Box 667\nGroves, TX 776 19\nRef. No. 08-0206\nDear Mr. Broussard:\nThis responds to your letter concerning the applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171 -1 80) to a cargo container that includes an independent and automatic\ncooling and heating system powered by two rechargeable, non-spillable, lead-acid electric\nstorage batteries. The container would either be placed into a unit load device (ULD) or secured\nto a pallet for loading into the cargo compartment of an aircraft. It is your understanding that\nsuch a cargo container containing regulated hazardous materials operating in flight as part of a\nprocess is subject to the HMR and may also be subject to operations and certification standards\nrequired by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).\nYour understanding of the HMR requirements is correct. The HMR except hazardous materials\nrequired aboard an aircraft in accordance with applicable airworthiness requirements (e.g., fuel,\nbatteries) and operating regulations (e.g., supplemental crew oxygen, oxygen generators,\nemergency egress systems). The cargo container you describe does not fall into either category.\nThe non-spillable batteries used to power the cargo container are excepted from the requirements\nof the HMR under the conditions specified in $ 173.1 59(d). However, the pressurized, non-\nflammable and non-toxic refrigerant (R134) used in the cooling system is fully subject to the\nrequirements of the HNIR, including marking and labeling of the cargo container, shipping\npapers (including certification), and emergency response information.\nI suggest that you contact the FAA for other applicable requirements. I trust this adequately\naddresses your concerns. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nStevens\n$175,8\nExceptions\n08-0206\nKEN BROUSSARD\n4099632137\n08(079)\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nThe Revolutionary Cold Chain\nManagement Solution\nHAlN OF CUSTODY ASSllRANCE\nLF-POWERED FOR LIP TO 100 HOURS\nNEED FOR REFRIGERATEDRiEEFER TRUCKS\nNEED FOR WALK-IN OR DRIVE-IN\n/OR STORE MULTIPLE\nFFERENT TEMPERATURES\nTECHNOLOGY\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n9Wn rate+\n*Controlled\n• Con tainers.\n1-888- ICE BOX 1\nFeatures\n•Preciso temperature control 1 8°F (1°6) in ambien temperatures o 49F (20°C) 1o 110 E (43°01\n• Multiple Units allow multiple payload temperatures on one truci\na unts are stackable three high and lockable with truck door style 2 point cam latche\no Accepis durable aluminumor standard 48 x 40\" GMA pallets\n* Can run on ACiline power or internal battenes\no tasily handled with forklift- 6-way access from door and and both sides\ne Environmentally frendly, No dry ice contamination,, No hazmal CO2 or exhaust emissions, Nos\ntruck engine Idle regured\n•Optional Postion Tracking & Temperature Logging and Reporting via Internet subscription.\n• Ship and drop loads during of hours with tewer traffic issues.\nMain Specifications\nInternal Temperature Set Point 39 F(4 0°C) = 1 8°F (1.0°C) In ambient conditions of 4°F(-20°C) 16\nM0°F(43°C)\nMax operating temp 120°5 (49 C) ambienta\nDimensions External 8125 H 47.5 W 88L (including latches), Internal 54 Hx 41.5 W : 52 D\nCara Capaclos 60, f (178 r0), 3000 Jos\nEmply welobe (850lb with ful bartery set\nPowet Inpu: 116 VAC 150-60 Hz) at 10A o 230 VAG (50 60H2) a1 5A,\nHold Tre Anteral batter 100 hours n 90°F (32°C) ambient with wide contral bandwoth ac\n: 381 (12°0) or 90 hours with narrow bandwidin or s 8% (1°C).\nProtacted unose US. Patone No. 0231341\nOite Patent Pending An Bighie Roderveo\nClimate\nControlled\nContainerS.com\nP.O. Box 667. Groves, Texas 71619 • 1-888-ICE BOX 1 (1-888-423-2691) • www.ClimateControlledContainers.com\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nJUN 26 2007 1200 New Jersey Avc . S E\nWash~nglon DC 20530\nMr. Marshall S. Filler\nObadal, Filler, MacLeod\n& Klein, P.L.C.\n117 North Henry Street\nAlexandria, VA 22314-2903\nRef. No. 07-0051\nDear Mr. Filler:\nThis responds to your letter dated January 16, 2007,\nconcerning the applicability of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to a cargo\ncontainer that includes an independent and automatic\ncooling system powered by a rechargeable lithium-ion\nbattery. The cargo container, identified as the Kelvinbox\nTracking Environmental Deviation System (T.E.D.S.), is\nloaded into the cargo compartment of an aircraft. It is\nyoilr understanding of 5 175.8(a) (2) of the HMR that such a\ncargo container (LD3) containing regulated hazardous\nmaterials operating in flight as part of a process would be\nexcepted from the HMR as \"hazardous materials required\naboard an aircraft in accordance with the applicable\nairworthiness requirements and operating regulations. \"\nYour understanding is not correct. The HMR except\nhazardous materials required aboard an aircraft in\naccordance with applicable airworthiness requirements\n(e.g., fuel, batteries) and operating regulations (e.g.,\nsuppiemental crew oxygen, oxygen generators, emergency\negress systems). The T.E.D.S. unit you describe does not\nappear to fall into either category. As such, the lithium-\nequivalent content of the lithium-ion battery (42 grams)\nused to power the T.E.D.S. cargo container would indicate\nthat it is fully regulated under the HMR. See 49 CFR\n173.185. In addition, the gross weight of the lithium-ion\nbattery (41.3 kg) would indicate that it is forbidden on\npassenger-carrying and cargc-carrying aircraft. See Column\ni9B) of the \"iithium battery\" entry in the 5 172.131\nHazardous Materials Table and 5 172.102, Special Frovisicn\nAi00.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nwe are also aware that the T.E.D.S. cargo containers may be\nsubject to operations and certification standards required\nby the Federal Aviation Administration.\nYou may suggest that your client apply for a special permit\nas provided in 5 107.105 of the HMR. The Special Permits\noffice may be reached at (202) 366-4535.\nI trust this adequately addresses your concerns. Please\ncontact us if we can be of further assistance.\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nMarshall S. Filler\nAdmitted in the Dishict of Columbia and Virginia\nObadal, Filler,\nMacLeod & Klein, P.L.C. CiceQ-bons\n117 North Henry Street, Alexandria VA 22314-2903\nTelephone 703.299.0784 Facsimile 703.299.0254\nwww.potornac-1aw.com 07; 005 1\nElectronic Mail mf@potomac-1aw.corn\nTelephone Extension 114\nJanuary 16, 2007\nVIA E-MAIL TO:\nJohn J. Hickey Director, Aircraft Certification Service (AIR-1) Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591-0004 Robert A. Richard\nActing Associate Administrator for\nHazardous Materials Safety (PHH-1)\nDepartment of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, SW\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nJames J. Ballough\nDirector, Flight Standards Service (AFS-1)\nFederal Aviation Administration\n800 Independence Avenue, SW\nWashington, DC 20591 -0004\nRe: Refrigerated Cargo Container\nDear Sirs:\nWe represent Tednologies, Inc. We are writing to request Federal Aviation\nAdministration (FAA) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) concurrence in the following plan for obtaining approval of a cargo container.\nthat includes an independent and automatic coolirlg system powered by a rechargeable\nlithium-ion battery. Once FAA approval has been obtained, we believe the unit would\nbe excepted from the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) as required equipment\npursuant to 49 CFR 5 178.8(a)(2).'\nBackground\nThe unit, presently identified as the Kelvinbox Tracking Environmental Deviation System\n(T.E.D.S.), is essentially an LD3 cargo container. Its purpose is to transport\ntemperature sensitive goods as freight aboard passenger and cargo aircraft.\n' Which provides, in part, that:\n(a) Operator equipment. This subchapter does not apply 1-\n(2) Hazardous materials required aboard an aircraft in accordance with the a ~ ~ l i c a b l e\nairworthiness requirements and operatinq reaulations. Items of replacement for such\nmaterials must be transported in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section. (Emphasis\nadded)\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nMessrs. Hickey, Ballough and Richard\nRe: Refrigerated Cargo Container\nJanuary 16,2007\nPage 2\nA prime application of this technology is the shipment of pharmaceuticals which are\nextremely susceptible to heat during loading and unloading of aircraft, and therefore\ndifficult to transport as air cargo. We have also received a great deal of interest from\nthose involved in delivering perishable goods to remote locations, primarily within the\nstate of Alaska.\nWhile the T.E.D.S. container is covered by FAA Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-\nC90c, titled \"Cargo Pallets, Nets, and Containers,\" the integrated cooling system is not.\nWe have learned in recent conversations with FAA personnel that the Aircraft\nCertification Service (AIR) and Flight Standards Service (AFS) have been reviewing this\nmatter. Our understanding is that the issues being discussed relate primarily to the\nmanner of obtaining a design approval and how maintenance would be performed on\nthe units.\nKelvinbox T.E.D.S. Description\nThe container is a rigid and insulated structure designed to meet the requirements of\nFAA TSO-C9Oc. In this regard, it is similar to many containers approved through this\nTSO.\nThe distinctive feature is the integrated autonomous cooling system. Unlike \"passive\"\ncooling of containerized cargo using dry ice, gel packs or other cooling media, the\ncontainer is \"active\" in that it monitors and maintains a pre-determined temperature\nusing a traditional mechanically operated refrigerant cooling system.\nPower for the cooling and monitoring system is provided by a rechargeable lithium-ion\nbattery. This battery is only charged on the ground by plugging a cord into a\nconventional electrical outlet; the process will not take place while the container is on-\nboard the aircraft. The design includes protective circuitry - a \"fuse\" to prevent a rapid\ndischarge (external load) and cell to cell \"fuses\" to cut off an internal (battery) short.\nCertification and UN Testing History\nInitial steps toward certification under TSO-C9Oc were taken through ASW-190 (TSO\napplication SP8352SC-Q). That application is dormant and will be withdrawn in the\nnear future as we finalize the design and manufacturing details.\nBecause exclusive production of the container will occur in Alaska, the application under\nTSO-C9Oc will be submitted to the Anchorage, Alaska ACO and the manufacturing\nquality system will be under the jurisdiction of the Wichita MIDO.\nIn addition to operational testing of the air conditioning module itself, the following tests\nhave been successfully completed on the container assembly and documented\naccordingly:\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nMessrs. Hickey, Ballough and Richard\nRe: Refrigerated Cargo Container\nJanuary 16,2007\nPage 3\nTemperature variation\nTemperature and altitude\nUltimate load\nRapid decompression\nElectromagnetic err~issions\nCrash safety impulse\nOperational shock\nBurning rate\nThe lithium-ion battery has passed all required testing pursuant to United\nNationsllnternational Civil Aviation Organization HAZMAT requirements.\nProposed Plan\nDesign approval issues: We propose that Notice 81 50.4, titled \"Non-TSO Function(s)\nIntegrated into TSO Articles,\" (Notice), be used to evaluate the design of the integrated\ncooling system as further described below. This would be accomplished during the\nTechnical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA) application process under TSO-C9Oc\nand the criteria set forth in the Notice.\nThere is no aircraft to ULD interface other than the usual aircraft restraint or locking\ndevice. Based on the criteria set forth in paragraph 4 of the Notice (see below), we\nbelieve that all pertinent design issues can be resolved through the above process and\nwithout the necessity for a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC).\nOperations and maintenance issues: $Operational issues would be addressed as\noutlined in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-85 titled \"Air Cargo Operations.\" Specifically,\neach operator would be responsible for ensuring that the carriage of these containers\nwas authorized in accordance with its Weight and Balance and/or Cargo Loading\nManuals. Since the TSOA process requires an applicant to provide instructions for\nmaintaining the units and other pertinent continued airworthiness information, that issue\ncan also be resolved within the proposed framework.\nHazardous Materials Regulations\nOnce FAA approval has been granted, the lithium-ion battery would then be excepted\nfrom the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) as \"required equipment\" under 49\nCFR § 1 75.8(a)(2).2\n- See supra note 1 .\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nMessrs. Hickey, Ballough and Richard\nRe: Refrigerated Cargo Container\nJanuary 16, 2007\nPage 4\nAs noted in the preamble to the final rule titled \"Prohibition of Oxygen Generators as\nCargo in Passenger Aircraft\" by the predecessor agency to PHMSA, the Research and\nSpecial Programs Administration (RSPA): \"RSPA does not regulate, and the HMR do\nnot apply to, components of the aircraft itse~f.\"~\nApproval of Non-TSO Functions\nAlthough the project has thus far resulted in some confusion among ASW-190 staff\nabout how the container should be approved, Notice 8150.4~ sets forth the pertinent\nguidance. Specifically, paragraph 4, titled \"Policy\" provides as follows:\na. Definition of a Non-TSO Function. A non-TSO function is one that is\nnot covered by a TSO-approved minimum performance standard (MPS),\ndoes not support or affect the hostinq article's TSO function(s), and could\ntechnicallv be implemented outside of the TSO article. A manufacturer\nmay choose to integrate a non-TSO function into a TSO article to support\na foreign airspace requirement; minimize the amount of line replaceable\nunits and interconnect wiring systems in an aircraft installation; address a\nspecific customer/industrv need; or for product differentiation. Non-TSO\nfunction(s) mav be included and acce~ted on a noninterference basis, as\npart of a manufacturer's TSO submittal, and a TSO authorization issued\nfor the article, if the manufacturer demonstrates that it meets all of the\nfollowing conditions:\n(1) The hostinq article is eliqible for TSO authorization and meets the\napplicable TSO performance requirements, per FAA Order 81 50.1 0,\nParagraph 17a(l) and 17a(2);\n(2) There is no a ~ ~ l i c a b l e TSO for the non-TSO function;\n(3) The added non-TSO function does not affect or interfere with the\nhostinq TSO article's required MPS or violate any limitations imposed bv\nthe hostinq TSO; and,\n(4) The hosting TSO article's environmental qualification, hardware and\nsoftware design assurance levels adequately support the non-TSO\nfunction. (Emphasis added)\nThe non-TSO cooling function should therefore be accepted as part of the TSO\nsubmittal because it meets this definition and satisfies the stated conditions: It is not\naddressed in the relevant TSO; its presence has no impact on the TSO-C9Oc\nperformance standard; and the container, or \"ho.sting article,\" meets the standard. The\n' 61 FR 68952, December 30, 1996.\nThe Order is dated September 29, 2006, with a cancellation date of September 29, 2007.\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nMessrs. Hickey, Ballough and Richard\nRe: Refrigerated Cargo Container\nJanuary 16,2007\nPage 5\nfinal stated condition is inapplicable because there is no design interface between the\ncooling system and the container structure other than structural support.\nFAA Engineering Review\nThe same paragraph in the Notice also provides guidance for an engineering\nevaluation:\nd. ACO Evaluation Criteria. If, followina earlv coordination between the\nACO and the manufacturer, it is determined that the non-TSO function is\nof a simple nature where the performance is easilv understandable, ACO\nreview of the manufacturer's declared performance requirements should\nsimply become part of the normal TSO data application evaluation.\nHowever, the ACO should require a concurrent Type Certificate (TC) or\nSupplemental Type Certificate (STC) project evaluation if it is determined\nthat the added non-TSO function(s): (Emphasis added.)\n(1) Is complex and difficult to review and fully understand without a\nconcurrent installation evall-lation;\n(2) Has a high degree of system flight deck to pilot interface;\n(3) Are of a simple nature individually but combined in such a way or in\nsufficient quantities to meet the criteria of 4d(l); or\n(4) Incorporates new or novel technology.\nThe non-TSO cooling function is of basic design. It is not complex individually or when\ncombined with other such containers, it has no flight crew interface, and it is a not new\nor novel technology.\nIn fact, a similar version of the most technologically advanced aspect of container, the\nlithium-ion battery, is currently .approved to power the emergency lighting system on the\nAirbus A380 air~raft.~ Concerns identified in granting that approval are largely\ninapplicable in our situation. Specifically, the risks associated with overcharging will not\napply because the container is not recharged on the aircraft; reduced capacity that\nresults from over-discharging would only result in reduced cooling capacity; and the\nbattery does not utilize flammable liquid electrolyte.\nSince there will be no unique interface with the airplane, evidence that an STC is not\nnecessary can be found in paragraph 315 of AC 120-85, which states, in part, that:\nAs appropriate to the type design, the specification of which ULDs are\ncorrlpatible with the particular airplane should be identified in the airplane\nSee, \"Special Conditions: Airbus Model A380-800 Airplane, Lithium-Ion Battery Installation,\" docket No.\nNM352; Special Conditions No. 25-339-SC.\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nMessrs. Hickey, Ballough and Richard\nRe: Refrigerated Cargo Container\nJanuary 16,2007\nPage 6\nweight and balance or carqo loading document. This is the primary means\nfor ensurinq the proper ULDs are used in the operation of the airplane.\n(Emphasis added)\nAs such, installation of the container would be governed by the Weight and Balance\nManual and/or Cargo Loading Manual of the aircraft on which it is loaded.\nFinally, Notice 8150.4, Appendix 2, paragraph 5 specifically states that:\nQ: Is a deviation request (reference 14 CFR 521.609) required when a\nmanufacturer incorporates a non-TSO function in a TSO article?\nA: No. The addition of a non-TSO function is not considered a deviation to\nthe hosting TSO article. In fact, the policy of this Notice requires the\nmanufacturer to demonstrate to the TSOA-issuing ACO that the non-TSO\nfunction in no way impacts the required performance of the hosting TSO\narticle.\nIn summary, we propose that the FAA evaluate the design of the T.E.D.S. container\nunder TSOA-C9Oc (as supplemented by Notice 8150.4) without the necessity of an\nSTC. We will work closely with the FAA during the TSOA process to ensure that\nappropriate continuing airworthiness information is provided. Further, becar~se the\nequipment would be carried in accordance with the airworthiness, operations and\nmaintenance rules, we submit that it would be excepted from the HMR under 49 CFR\n§ 175.8(a)(2).\nWe hope this letter explains the article and clarifies the issues related to the anticipated\napplication under TSO-C9Oc with the Anchorage ACO. Please let me know if you have\nany questions or require further information.\nSincerely,\nMarshall S. Filler\ncc: Dave Cann (AFS-300)\nDave Hempe (AIR-1 00)\nAli Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-100)\nGregory J. Holt, Manager, Anchorage ACO (ACE-1 15N)\nMargaret Kline, Manager, Wichita MIDO (ACE-1 15W)","truncated":false,"body_characters":19904}