Patterson Companies, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOV 1 0 2011 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE Washington. D.C. 20590 Mr. Robb Boros Patterson Companies, Inc. 1905 Lakewood Drive Boone, Iowa 50036 Reference No.: 11-0210 Dear Mr. Boros: This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR~ 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the capability requirements for aerosol containers specified throughout § 173.306. Specifically, you seek clarification of the following language referenced in § 173.306(a)(S)(ii) with concern to aerosol capability. "All nOll-DOT specification and specification DOT 2S containers must be capable of withstanding, without bursting, a pressure of one and one-half times the equilibrium pressure of the contents at 130 OF." You ask if the temperature reference in § 173.306(a)(S)(ii) is referring to the equilibrium pressure, or the capability requirement, itself. The temperature reference in § 173.306(a)(5)(ii) is intended to refer to the equilibrium pressure of the contents. Therefore, as specified in § 173.306(a)(5)(ii), all non-DOT specification and specification DOT 2S containers must be capable of withstanding, without bursting, a pressure of one and one-half times the equilibrium pressure of the contents, whatever this may be. Section I 78.33b-7 addresses performance of DOT 2S containers at high temperatures. I hope this satisfies your inquiry. T. Glenn Foster Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division#

Page 2Corporate Office 1031 Mendota Heights Road PXI'IIERSON Main 800.328.5536 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55120 Fax 651.686.9331 OMPANIES~ iNC. www.pattersondental.com September 7, 2011 13enedlC}­Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Attn: PHH-lO, ~ 173- 30(, U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey A venue, SE, East Building ~~lu'1ders Washington, DC 20590-0001 ,,- ozJD I am requesting clarification regarding the capability testing of aerosol containers as prescribed in several parts of 173.306. I am familiar with a previous letter requesting clarification regarding capability testing procedures and the DOT response that no testing method is specified for determining capability. This letter seeks clarification of the language used in referring to the capability of the aerosol container at the 1.5x equilibrium pressure. Albeit, the one and one-half capability is referenced in several parts of 173.306, please refer to l73.306(a)(5)(ii): "Pressure in the container must not exceed 160 psig at 130 oF. Ifthe pressure in the container is less than 140 psig at 130 oF, a non-DOT specification container may be used. If the pressure in the container exceeds 140 psig at 130 OF but does not exceed 160 psig at 130 OF, the container must cO'!form to specification DOT 2S. All non-DOT specification and specification DOT 2S containers must be capable of withstanding, without bursting, a pressure of one and one-half times the equilibrium pressure of the contents at 130 oF. " This entry is clear until the last sentence that presents an ambiguity regarding the temperature reference as explained in the following interpretations: Interpretation 1: All non-DOT specification and specification DOT 2S containers must be capable of withstanding, without bursting, a pressure ofone and one-ha?ftimes the [equilibrium pressure ofthe contents at 130 OF). Interpretation 2: All non-DOT specification and specification DOT 2S containers must be capable of withstanding, without bursting, a pressure ofone and one-halftimes the [equilibrium pressure ofthe contents] at 130 OF. The first interpretation would simply include the temperature as part of the reference to the equilibrium pressure indicating that temperature is irrelevant when verifying capability, whereas the second provides that temperature is pertinent to the capability of the container to withstanding the one and one-half the equilibrium pressure and that the capability must be considered at the 130F temperature. It would seem that whenever the HMR is looking for data to substantiate performance, there is mandate for consistency. The properties of the materials used to make containers whether metal or plastic - change when subjected to different temperatures and it would seem prudent they remain consistent throughout testing when the results reflect the containers ability to perform, whether specified or implied. I have addressed this with Mr. Mark Toughiry of the DOT. After explaining this issue and my concerns regarding plastic aerosol containers, he agreed that capability testing should be conducted at the same temperature as the equilibrium pressure. Sincerely, Robb Boros Compliance Coordinator Patterson Companies, Inc.c/o Patterson Logistics :servlc:es,ln;c. 1905 Lakewood Drive#

Page 3Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) From: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:48 PM To: Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) Subject: FW: Letter requesting interpretation of aerosol container capability temperatures Attachments: Aerosol Capability Temp Letter.pdf Hi Carolyn, We received the following request for a letter of interpretation. Thanks, Victoria Victoria Lehman Hazmat Information Center (HMIC) http://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/info-center (202) 366-1035 From: robb.boros@pattersoncompanies.com [mailto: robb. boros@pattersoncompanies.coml sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:06 PM To: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Subject: Letter requesting interpretation of aerosol container capability temperatures Please find a letter requesting interpretation regarding aerosol container capability and testing. Thanks Robb Boros Compliance Coordinator Patterson Companies, Inc. 515.433.1700 (Fax 1701) What would the world be like if Pandora had used UN Packaging? NOTICE: This email transmission and any attachments that accompany it may contain information that is confidential or othefWise exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it was intended to be addressed. If you have received this email by mistake, or you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use or retention of this communication or its substance is prohibited. Ifyou have received this communication in error, please immediately report to the author via email that you received this message by mistake and also permanently destroy printed copies and delete the original and all copies of this email and any attachments from your computer. 1#