A sampling of what you've missed in the July / August 2007 issue of HAZMAT Packager & Shipper...

As a Subscriber, you would have learned ....

     that the UN Transport of Dangerous Goods Sub-Committee may be getting closer to resolving the discrepancies between ICAO, IMO, and the UN Model Regulation for handling consumer commodities and limited quantities that would preserve the distinction that presently exists under 49 CFR.  UN Sub-Committee Meeting Report

    that PHMSA’s Bob Richard closed a recent workshop by announcing that DOT is committed to taking a fresh look at the bulk loading and unloading regulatory issues.  Based on an in-depth evaluation of transportation accidents that can be related to loading and unloading operations, DOT may be seriously reconsidering its current position on what it now views as its jurisdictional limits in these operations.  Workshop on Reducing the Risk of Hazardous Materials Incidents During Loading and Unloading Operations 

    that although DOT, in a recent clarification letter, condoned the placing of security plans on a company’s intranet, the issue may not be as simple as it first might have appeared.  Doing so could lead to other serious violations of the regulations.  The author cautions against such an action without a thorough evaluation of other related compliance obligations a company has under DOT and TSA’s security regulations.  Comments on DOT Letters of Interpretation; Section 172.802

    that DOT proposes changes under Docket HM-206F in the emergency response telephone number rules.  This would be to assure identification on shipping papers of the specific offeror who contracts for service with an emergency response information provider.   DOT describes this as a “narrow” change.  However, the author points out that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking could have wide impact, including in Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).  Consequently, he advises careful review by all shippers and carriers.  Issues with Docket HM-206F NPRM

    that an on-going DOT packaging testing program at U.S. Army Tobyhanna seems headed for significant changes on requirements for testing of combination packaging and IBCs.  Shippers, package testing organizations and packaging manufacturers should follow developments closely.  A change in drop test requirements for IBCs could have very significant impact on that industry.  The current transportation record seems satisfactory in respect to drop testing evaluations.  Where is DOT’s packaging testing program headed

    that DOT is studying failures in combination packagings containing liquids in air transportation to examine some of the underlying conditions that can lead to these failures.  All parties with a stake in this process need to give serious attention to the early stages of what may become a significant rulemaking.  It could greatly affect packaging and testing requirements for shipping liquid dangerous goods by air.  The author reports on a recent meeting.  Combination Packaging for Dangerous Goods Liquids Problem Assessment

    that the UN has adopted new definitions for “cargo transport unit” and “closed cargo transport unit”.  Note that that cargo transport units with fabric sides or tops are not considered closed cargo transport units.  UN Sub-Committee Meeting Report

    that the Chemical Safety Board is formally recommending DOT expand its regulatory coverage to include rail and tank truck chlorine unloading operations.  In addition, the Board is recommending that DOT require remotely operated isolation valves and proper maintenance of these systems.  Workshop on Reducing the Risk of Hazardous Materials Incidents During Loading and Unloading Operations

    that shippers who have old pre-printed DIAGNOSTIC SPECIMEN markings - as well as any other markings potentially indicative of a hazardous material -  may wish to consider covering or obliterating them on the exterior of packages that contain only non-regulated materials.  This, without regard to the fact that display of such markings is not prohibited under the HMR.  The author points out the carriers’ dilemma with DOT’s “knowledge” position on the contents of what appear to be unregulated packagings.  Such markings could lead to hiatuses during shipment.  Comments on DOT Letters of Interpretation; Sections 172.101 and 173.199

    about the process and logic that FAA follows for ORM-D materials in its enforcement program.  The article explains how the FAA arrives at the penalty amount for a violation of the DOT hazardous materials regulations when shipping ORM-D materials or materials that could have been classed as ORM-D but were not.  Shipping ORM-D Consumer Commodity By Air