{"operation":"document","citation":"12-0260","title":"TEN-E Packaging Services, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2013-02-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"12-0260 response to TEN-E Packaging Services, Inc. concerning 171.8, 173.306.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0260.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0260.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0260","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2013/120260.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nFEB 1 4 2013\nMr. Robert J. TenEyck\nDirector, Technical Services\nTEN-E Packaging Services, Inc.\n1666 County Road 74\nNewport,~ 55055\nReference No. 12-0260\nDear Mr. TenEyck:\nThis is in response to your November 12, 2012 letter requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the definition\nof an \"aerosol.\" In your letter, you describe a microfoam delivery system that consists of\ntwo separate 3 00 ml ( 1 0.25 ounces) canisters, one that contains \"UN 1072, Oxygen,\ncompressed, 2.2 (non-flammable compressed gas), 5.1 (oxidizer)\" under 5.4 bars of pressure\nand the other that contains a foaming product that does not meet the definition of a\nDepartment of Transportation hazard class and \"UN 1013, Carbon dioxide, 2.2\" under 1.2\nbars of pressure. You also state these canisters are joined together with a protective collar\nequipped with a safety clip and a packaging system that allows the two canisters to be\ntwisted together, the oxygen dispensed into the canister with the foaming product, and the\npressurized foaming product to be released at the time of use through the use of manometer\ntubing and syringe. You ask whether the microfoam delivery system meets the definition of\nan \"aerosol.\"\nThe answer is no. The HMR defines an aerosol as \"any non-refillable receptacle containing\na gas compressed, liquefied or dissolved under pressure, the sole purpose of which is to\nexpel a nonpoisonous (other than a Division 6.1 Packing Group III material) liquid, paste, or\npowder and fitted with a self-closing release device allowing the contents to be ejected by\nthe gas\" (see§ 171.8). Based on the information you provided, the canister that contains the\nfoaming product and carbon dioxide meets the definition of an aerosol after it has been\ncharged with oxygen from the other canister, and this occurs when both canisters are no\nlonger in transportation. While in transport, the canister that contains the foaming product is\nnot under sufficient pressure at 1.2 bars of pressure to allow its product to be expelled.\nFurther, the canister containing 300 ml of oxygen exceeds the 4 ounce capacity limit under\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n§ 173.306(a)(l) that would allow it to be transported as a limited quantity. Therefore, it is\nthe opinion of this Office that the canister containing the foaming product is not regulated as\na hazardous material under the HMR, and the canister that contains the oxygen must be\ndescribed as \"UN 2037, Receptacles, small, containing gas (gas cartridges), 2.2, 5.1\" or \"UN\n1072, Oxygen, compressed, 2.2.\"\nI hope this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\n-Y4~~\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nNovember 12, 2012\nCharles Betts\nStandards and Rulemaking, PHH-10\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n£dmonson\n.!3 17 I· ~\n~~1~·/0_1\nbe-Pi tl,·f-tor1:s\n12--b:LbO\nOn behalf of the BTG International Group1 TEN-E Packaging Services is seeking a formal\ninterpretation on a unique medical product packaging that we believe should be properly described as\nan \"Aerosol\". The aerosol system consists of 300 ml canisters locked together with a dispensing\ndevice that incorporates a protective collar. The top canister contains oxygen under a pressure of 5·4\nbar and the bottom unit contains product and carbon dioxide under a pressure of 1.2 bar. The oxygen\nthe propellant and product are separated. The design as presented in the attached schematic in\nessence follows the same concept in that the main propellant, the oxygen, is kept separate until the\ntime of use. Since this package system is designed to expel a liquid under pressure we think that its\nclassification as an aerosol is appropriate but would appreciate your input on this regulatory matter.\nRobert). J~ Eyck\nDirector, Technical Services\nTEN-E Packaging Services, inc.\nEnl!e~ii:\nWt<:b: wvv.wSe!l~\\'!!.,~§)m\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nRobert J. TenEyck\nNovember 12, 2012\nPage 2 of3\nUnpackJng\n::h:yge~:\nG~rt~:J:e,~\n,_ (\nl\n:=•::-4 i~:;; ::;c s.n·::\n·::s:n~;J:e:-\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nGas ha\nRobert J. TenEyck\nNovember 12/ 2012\nPage 3 of3","truncated":false,"body_characters":4361}