**32^nd^ Session of the Sub-Committee of Experts**

**on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE TDG)**

**3-7 December 2007**

**Summary of Proposals and Results**

*Note: This was the second of the TDG Sub-Committee\'s four meetings
scheduled to be held during the 2007-2008 biennium. The purpose of this
meeting was to consider amendments to the UN Recommendations on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods, also known as the UN \"Model
Regulations\". The amendments agreed to by the Sub-Committee during this
biennium will be submitted for final consideration and approval at the
4^th^ session of the UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals in December, 2008. Once approved by the
Committee, the amendments will be incorporated into the 16^th^ Revised
Edition of the UN Model Regulations and will be adopted within the IMDG
Code and ICAO TI from January 1, 2011.*

*UN papers be downloaded from the UN Transport Division website at:
<http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/dgsubc/c32007.html>*

*Visit the website of the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety's
Director of International Standards at:
http://hazmat.dot.gov/intstandards.htm for pertinent information
relative to the office's international activities including: Schedules
of International Meetings, The UN Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods (UN Model Regulation), The UN Committee and
Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods,
International Atomic Energy Agency International Maritime Organization's
Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers (DSC) Sub-Committee,
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Panel
European Agreements Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous
Goods by Road (ADR) and Rail (RID) North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) Hazardous Materials Land Transportation Standards
Sub-Committee.*

+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **P  | **Paper Title/Summary**       | **Draft US Positions and      |
| aper |                               | Comments**                    |
| \#** |                               |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *References to ISO standards  | The U.S. supported this       |
| 007/ | in the UN Model Regulation    | proposal along with the       |
| 35** | (UK)*                         | editorial amendment noted by  |
|      |                               | the UK in Inf.37.             |
| **   | The UK is proposing to update |                               |
| Inf. | the references to three ISO   | **Result: This proposal was   |
| 37** | standards in various          | adopted.**                    |
|      | paragraphs throughout the     |                               |
|      | Model Regulations.            |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *Addendum to                  |                               |
|      | ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2007/35*      |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | This informal document        |                               |
|      | provides a slight editorial   |                               |
|      | fix to the text proposed      |                               |
|      | referencing the updated ISO   |                               |
|      | standards.                    |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **20 | *Packing Instructions P620 &  | The U.S. did not support this |
| 07/3 | P650 (IATA)*                  | proposal. We understand       |
| 6/** |                               | IATA's position, however were |
|      | In this paper IATA proposes   | concerned that removing this  |
| *    | to amend the following        | exception may pose            |
| *Rev | sentence in P620 and P650 as  | complications for shippers of |
| .1** | shown:                        | infectious substances, who    |
|      |                               | would need to be trained in   |
|      | *Other dangerous goods shall  | how to differentiate between  |
|      | not be packed in the same     | neutralized and               |
|      | packaging as Division 6.2     | non-neutralized samples and   |
|      | infectious substances unless  | use applicable provisions     |
|      | they are necessary for        | (i.e. excepted quantity       |
|      | maintaining the viability,    | provisions etc.) for          |
|      | stabilizing or preventing     | transporting a neutralized    |
|      | degradation ~~or neutralizing | sample. During the meeting we |
|      | the hazards~~ of the          | noted that the proposed       |
|      | infectious substances. A      | change would drive            |
|      | quantity of 30 mL or less of  | neutralized infectious        |
|      | dangerous goods included in   | substances containing small   |
|      | Classes 3, 8 or 9 may be      | quantities of dangerous goods |
|      | packed in each primary        | into a higher level of        |
|      | receptacle containing         | regulation than stabilized    |
|      | infectious substances. When   | infectious substances         |
|      | these small quantities of     | containing small quantities   |
|      | dangerous goods are packed    | of such dangerous goods.      |
|      | with infectious substances in | Shippers of neutralized       |
|      | accordance with this packing  | infectious substances, for    |
|      | instruction, no other         | example, would be subject to  |
|      | requirements in these         | the full regulatory training  |
|      | Regulations need be met.*     | required under the excepted   |
|      |                               | quantity provisions.          |
|      | IATA states that if the       |                               |
|      | hazard is neutralized the     | **Result: IATA withdrew the   |
|      | substance is no longer        | proposal.**                   |
|      | infectious and should not be  |                               |
|      | transported as a Division 6.2 |                               |
|      | material.                     |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Facilitation of shipments of | There are no proposals in     |
| 007/ | radioactive material (IMO)*   | this paper. The U.S. will     |
| 37** |                               | continue to work closely with |
|      | In this paper IMO provides a  | IMO to facilitate transport   |
|      | copy of its newly adopted     | and ensure the UN TDG SC      |
|      | "Mechanism within the IMO     | takes appropriate actions in  |
|      | secretariat for the           | this regard.                  |
|      | resolution of difficulties in |                               |
|      | the carriage of IMDG Code     |                               |
|      | dangerous goods including     |                               |
|      | class 7 radioactive           |                               |
|      | materials."                   |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Principles underlying the    | The U.S. supported            |
| 007/ | regulations of the transport  | clarification to the wording  |
| 38** | of dangerous goods (IMO)*     | as proposed by Australia.     |
|      |                               |                               |
| **   | In this paper IMO expresses   | **Result: A modified text was |
| INF. | concern over the following    | agreed to clarifying that the |
| 20** | wording in the forward to the | modal regulations may employ  |
|      | UN Recommendations:           | more stringent requirements   |
|      |                               | when necessary for            |
|      | *"The Model Regulations       | operational reasons.**        |
|      | annexed to this document are  |                               |
|      | addressed to all modes of     |                               |
|      | transport. Where less         |                               |
|      | stringent requirements can be |                               |
|      | applied to only one mode,     |                               |
|      | that fact is not indicated    |                               |
|      | unless otherwise specified in |                               |
|      | these Regulations. For air    |                               |
|      | transport more stringent      |                               |
|      | requirements may occasionally |                               |
|      | apply".*                      |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | Specifically, IMO believes    |                               |
|      | the second sentence is        |                               |
|      | misleading and requests the   |                               |
|      | UN SCOE consider revising the |                               |
|      | text.                         |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *Principles Underlying the    |                               |
|      | Regulation of the*            |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *Transport of Dangerous Goods |                               |
|      | (Australia)*                  |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | Australia supports 2007/38 in |                               |
|      | principle and offers proposed |                               |
|      | text:                         |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *"5. The Model Regulations    |                               |
|      | annexed to this document are  |                               |
|      | addressed to all modes of     |                               |
|      | transport. Where less         |                               |
|      | stringent requirements can be |                               |
|      | applied to only one mode,     |                               |
|      | that*                         |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *fact is not indicated unless |                               |
|      | otherwise specified in these  |                               |
|      | Regulations. For air **and    |                               |
|      | sea** transport more          |                               |
|      | stringent requirements may    |                               |
|      | occasionally apply."*         |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Subsidiary risks for toxic   | The U.S. did not support this |
| 007/ | by inhalation liquids         | proposal. Special provisions  |
| 39** | (Belgium)*                    | 313 and 329 have been         |
|      |                               | assigned to these entries for |
| **   | Currently the UN Model        | many years without causing    |
| INF. | Regulations contain two       | problems with classification  |
| 26** | special provisions (SPs 313   | and hazard communication. We  |
|      | and 329) which require an     | were concerned that           |
|      | additional hazard class label | introducing new descriptions  |
|      | to be applied when            | would require needless        |
|      | appropriate for certain       | changes to shipping paper     |
|      | substances. In this paper     | entries and markings on       |
|      | Belgium proposes to eliminate | packages (in some cases       |
|      | these special provisions and  | remarking of portable tanks)  |
|      | create eleven new entries to  | to reflect the new UN numbers |
|      | cover all possible hazard     | and proper shipping names. We |
|      | combinations.                 | also voiced concern that if   |
|      |                               | new entries were agreed to    |
|      | *Revised                      | they should be consistent     |
|      | ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2007/39       | with existing entries for     |
|      | (Belgium)*                    | multiple hazard materials.    |
|      |                               | For example n.o.s. entries    |
|      | Belgium amends their proposal | typically refer in the proper |
|      | by identifying an additional  | shipping name to all          |
|      | UN number (UN 2030) that is   | applicable hazards (i.e.      |
|      | assigned SP 329). They are    | flammable, corrosive, etc.)   |
|      | proposing to add a new        | while specifically named      |
|      | description for *Hydrazine    | materials do not generally    |
|      | Aqueous Solution, Flammable*  | include such additional text. |
|      | (Class 8, Sub-risk 3/6.1).    | Belgium's proposed entries    |
|      |                               | are not consistent in this    |
|      |                               | regard.                       |
|      |                               |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: Separate votes were |
|      |                               | taken on the specific and     |
|      |                               | generic entries. The proposal |
|      |                               | was adopted in full. We will  |
|      |                               | consider the need to address  |
|      |                               | the issue of inconsistent     |
|      |                               | names at the July, 2008 UN    |
|      |                               | session.**                    |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Definition of closed cargo   | The U.S. did not support this |
| 007/ | transport unit (Belgium)*     | proposal as written. We       |
| 40** |                               | offered a compromise to       |
|      | The current definition of a   | replace the existing first    |
|      | cargo transport unit reads as | sentence as proposed by       |
|      | follows:                      | Belgium while retaining the   |
|      |                               | existing second sentence. The |
|      | *Closed cargo transport unit: | guidance concerning fabric    |
|      | means a cargo transport unit  | sides was included based on   |
|      | which totally encloses the    | experience. Definitions for   |
|      | contents by permanent         | \"Drums\" and \"Freight       |
|      | structures. Cargo transport   | Container\" include examples  |
|      | units with fabric sides or    | of items that are not         |
|      | tops are not considered       | considered a part of the      |
|      | closed cargo transport        | definition.                   |
|      | units.*                       |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: The proposal was    |
|      | Belgium states that in        | adopted with an amendment     |
|      | principle a definition should | that retained the             |
|      | not include a statement       | clarification regarding       |
|      | regarding what is not         | fabric sides.**               |
|      | included in the definition    |                               |
|      | and proposes the definition   |                               |
|      | be amended to read as         |                               |
|      | follows:                      |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *Closed cargo transport unit: |                               |
|      | means a cargo transport unit  |                               |
|      | which totally encloses the    |                               |
|      | contents by permanent         |                               |
|      | structures with complete and  |                               |
|      | rigid surfaces.*              |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Proposed revision of Chapter | The U.S. was not strongly     |
| 007/ | 2.9 (UK)*                     | opposed to this proposal,     |
| 41** |                               | however we noted that the     |
|      | This paper proposes major     | structure proposed by the UK  |
|      | revisions to Chapter 2.9,     | is not consistent with the    |
|      | which includes the            | other chapters describing     |
|      | classification criteria for   | hazard classes 1-8.           |
|      | Class 9. The UK states that   |                               |
|      | the format proposed is more   | **Result: The proposal was    |
|      | consistent with the format    | adopted.**                    |
|      | utilized within the European  |                               |
|      | Agreement for the Transport   |                               |
|      | of Dangerous Goods by Road    |                               |
|      | (ADR) and more user friendly. |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Proposals concerning         | The U.S. supported the        |
| 007/ | requirements for open         | proposed requirements for     |
| 42** | cryogenic receptacles (UK)*   | cryogenic receptacles.        |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | In this paper the UK proposes | **Result: The proposal        |
|      | requirements for open         | received support in           |
|      | cryogenic receptacles (OCRs). | principle. The UK will submit |
|      | A new packing instruction and | a revised proposal based on   |
|      | new special provisions are    | the editorial comments        |
|      | proposed. Affected substances | received.**                   |
|      | include:                      |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | UN 1913 NEON, REFRIGERATED    |                               |
|      | LIQUID                        |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | UN 1951 ARGON, REFRIGERATED   |                               |
|      | LIQUID                        |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | UN 1963 HELIUM, REFRIGERATED  |                               |
|      | LIQUID                        |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | UN 1970 KRYPTON, REFRIGERATED |                               |
|      | LIQUID                        |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | UN 1977 NITROGEN,             |                               |
|      | REFRIGERATED LIQUID           |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | UN 2591 XENON, REFRIGERATED   |                               |
|      | LIQUID                        |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | UN 3136 TRIFLUOROMETHANE,     |                               |
|      | REFRIGERATED LIQUID           |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | UN 3158 GAS, REFRIGERATED     |                               |
|      | LIQUID, N.O.S.                |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Reclassification of UN3090   | The U.S. did not support this |
| 007/ | and UN3091, Lithium Metal     | proposal. We did not agree    |
| 43** | Batteries (IFALPA)*           | that lithium metal batteries  |
|      |                               | are more appropriately        |
| **   | In this paper IFALPA proposes | classed within Division 4.3.  |
| Inf. | to reclassify lithium metal   | We expressed our commitment   |
| 40** | batteries as Division 4.3     | to evaluating all possible    |
|      | materials. IFALPA cites       | solutions which would have a  |
| **   | emergency response concerns   | practical effect in reducing  |
| Inf. | and believes that Division    | the incidents which have      |
| 48** | 4.3 more accurately           | occurred and improving        |
|      | communicates the risk posed   | safety.                       |
|      | by lithium metal batteries,   |                               |
|      | which contain metallic        | **Result: The proposal        |
|      | lithium, itself a             | received little support and   |
|      | water-reactive Division 4.3   | after considering the         |
|      | material.                     | comments of the various SCOE  |
|      |                               | members, IFALPA withdrew the  |
|      | *Maintain classification of   | proposal.**                   |
|      | UN 3090 and 3091, Lithium     |                               |
|      | Metal Batteries (PRBA)*       |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | In this paper PRBA opposes    |                               |
|      | the proposal from IFALPA.     |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *Outcome of ICAO DGP          |                               |
|      | Discussion on Lithium         |                               |
|      | Batteries*                    |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | In this paper ICAO reports on |                               |
|      | decisions taken by the DGP    |                               |
|      | with respect to lithium       |                               |
|      | batteries.                    |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Impact Testing of UN         | The U.S. was not opposed to   |
| 007/ | Portable Tanks and MEGCs      | the alignment of the design   |
| 44** | Section 41.2 of the Manual of | variations with the           |
|      | Tests and Criteria (Canada)*  | variations agreed to by ISO.  |
|      |                               | In addition, we supported the |
|      | This paper proposes to        | criteria proposed by Canada   |
|      | replace the existing criteria | with respect to permitted     |
|      | in section 41.2.1 of the UN   | design variations for MEGCs.  |
|      | Manual for Tests and Criteria |                               |
|      | concerning permitted design   | **Result: The proposal        |
|      | variations for portable tanks | received support in principle |
|      | with revised criteria as      | from several delegations;     |
|      | found in ISO 1496-3. In       | however concern was expressed |
|      | addition Canada proposes      | by some over the proposed     |
|      | amendments to the relevant    | wording. The proposal was not |
|      | criteria for MEGCs, which are | adopted. Canada will submit a |
|      | not addressed in the ISO      | revised proposal.**           |
|      | standard. The revised text is |                               |
|      | as follows:                   |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | 41.2 Permitted design         |                               |
|      | variations                    |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | The following variations in   |                               |
|      | container design from an      |                               |
|      | already tested prototype are  |                               |
|      | permitted without additional  |                               |
|      | testing:                      |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *41.2.1 Portable tanks*       |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *(a) A reduction of no more   |                               |
|      | than 10% or an increase of no |                               |
|      | more than 20% in capacity,    |                               |
|      | resulting from variations in  |                               |
|      | diameter and length;*         |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *(b) A decrease in maximum    |                               |
|      | permissible gross mass;*      |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *(c) An increase in           |                               |
|      | thickness, independent of     |                               |
|      | design pressure and           |                               |
|      | temperature;*                 |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *(d) A change to the grade of |                               |
|      | material of construction      |                               |
|      | provided that the permitted   |                               |
|      | yield strength meets or       |                               |
|      | exceeds that of the tested    |                               |
|      | portable tank;*               |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *(e) A change in location of, |                               |
|      | or a modification to, nozzles |                               |
|      | and manways.*                 |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *41.2.2 MEGCs*                |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *a) A change in capacity of   |                               |
|      | any individual element of no  |                               |
|      | more than 10%;*               |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *b) A change of no more than  |                               |
|      | 10% in unladen (tare) mass;*  |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *c) A change of no more than  |                               |
|      | 10% in maximum permissible    |                               |
|      | gross mass.*                  |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Exemption of Batteries       | The U.S. did not support this |
| 007/ | (Alkali-Manganese-, Zink      | proposal. While we recognize  |
| 45** | carbon-, Nickel-Metal hydride | an incident occurred due to   |
|      | and Nickel-Cadmium-Batteries  | exposure of a cargo transport |
| **   | as well as Button cells, UN   | unit containing NiMH          |
| Inf. | No. 3028) from the provisions | batteries to an extreme heat  |
| 39** | of the UN Model Regulations   | source, we do not agree these |
|      | (Germany)*                    | types of batteries should be  |
|      |                               | classified as dangerous goods |
|      | This paper proposes a number  | under normal conditions of    |
|      | of amendments related to UN   | transport. We did not support |
|      | 3028 (batteries, dry,         | the introduction of a new UN  |
|      | containing potassium          | number. We also did not agree |
|      | hydroxide, solid, electric    | to amend SP 304 as suggested  |
|      | storage). The proposal stems  | since the existing SP 304     |
|      | from a maritime incident      | provides requirements that    |
|      | involving two containers      | are applicable to other types |
|      | containing NiMH batteries,    | of dry cell batteries.        |
|      | which are commonly used for   |                               |
|      | household equipment and       | We expressed our view that    |
|      | consumer electronics. The     | other actions could be        |
|      | containers were stowed near   | undertaken to ensure that     |
|      | heated tanks (70^o^C) which   | stowage information is        |
|      | caused the plastic casings of | properly conveyed to the      |
|      | the batteries to melt.        | vessel operator. Those could  |
|      | Subsequently, hydrogen gas    | include a DSC circular and an |
|      | was released into the         | industry standard practice    |
|      | container and the             | for notifying the operator;   |
|      | hydrogen/air mixture was      | or a new special provision in |
|      | ignited. To address the       | the IMDG Code.                |
|      | maritime stowage concerns,    |                               |
|      | Germany is proposing the      | The U.S. questioned whether,  |
|      | following amendments:         | in consideration of the       |
|      |                               | particulars of the incident   |
|      | 1\) Amend special provision   | in question, the change       |
|      | 304 to read as follows:       | proposed by PRBA is           |
|      |                               | necessary.                    |
|      | "This entry applies to        |                               |
|      | storage batteries filled with | **Result: Based on comments   |
|      | potassium hydroxide, solid    | received, Germany withdrew    |
|      | which are shipped from the    | its proposal and intends to   |
|      | factory in their original dry | submit a revised proposal at  |
|      | state and filled with dry     | the next session.**           |
|      | alkali. Water would be added  |                               |
|      | to the battery before first   |                               |
|      | being used."                  |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | 2\) Add a new Class 9 entry   |                               |
|      | to the DG List as follows:    |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | "UN XXXX BATTERIES, DRY,      |                               |
|      | CONTAINING POTASSIUM          |                               |
|      | HYDROXIDE (NICKEL-HYDRIDE     |                               |
|      | PORTABLE ACCUMULATORS)".      |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | 3\) Add a new special         |                               |
|      | provision to this new entry   |                               |
|      | to read as follows:           |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | "This entry applies to        |                               |
|      | batteries used for households |                               |
|      | only containing potassium     |                               |
|      | hydroxide solution absorbed   |                               |
|      | by the solid contents of the  |                               |
|      | battery covered in a way that |                               |
|      | no corrosive electrolyte can  |                               |
|      | flow out. These batteries are |                               |
|      | subject to these Regulations  |                               |
|      | only when transported by      |                               |
|      | sea."                         |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | Comments on 2007/45 (PRBA)    |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | In this document PRBA         |                               |
|      | proposes an alternative       |                               |
|      | solution to the issues raised |                               |
|      | by Germany. Specifically,     |                               |
|      | PRBA proposes to a new        |                               |
|      | special provision XXX as      |                               |
|      | follows:                      |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *When transported by sea,     |                               |
|      | cargo transport units of      |                               |
|      | portable nickel metal hydride |                               |
|      | batteries shall be            |                               |
|      | accompanied by a document     |                               |
|      | stating that the consignment  |                               |
|      | must be stowed away from      |                               |
|      | sources of heat. The          |                               |
|      | batteries shall be separated  |                               |
|      | to prevent short circuits and |                               |
|      | packed in strong outer        |                               |
|      | packaging. Cargo transport    |                               |
|      | units shall be suitably       |                               |
|      | marked on the exterior        |                               |
|      | \"BATTERIES (NiMH) - STOWAGE  |                               |
|      | AWAY FROM SOURCE OF HEAT\" in |                               |
|      | letters not less than 65 mm   |                               |
|      | high. These requirements do   |                               |
|      | not apply nickel metal        |                               |
|      | hydride button cells.*        |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Proper shipping name and     | The U.S. was not opposed to   |
| 007/ | technical name of generic or  | this proposal although we     |
| 46** | n.o.s. entries (Germany)*     | believed the existing text    |
|      |                               | which states "or other name   |
|      | This paper proposes to amend  | currently used in scientific  |
|      | the explanatory text in the   | and technical handbooks,      |
|      | UN Model regulations          | journals and texts" would     |
|      | regarding technical names for | allow a biological name.      |
|      | generic descriptions. The     | However, if the Sub-Committee |
|      | paper proposes that the text  | was in agreement with the     |
|      | in 3.1.2.8.1.1 be amended to  | amendment we suggested a      |
|      | account for infectious        | minor editorial correction.   |
|      | substances as follows:        |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: The proposal was    |
|      | "The technical name shall be  | adopted with minor editorial  |
|      | a recognized chemical name**, | amendments.**                 |
|      | [if relevant a biological     |                               |
|      | name]{.underline},** or other |                               |
|      | name currently used in        |                               |
|      | scientific and technical      |                               |
|      | handbooks, journals and       |                               |
|      | texts."                       |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Fumigated units and cargo    | The U.S. generally supported  |
| 007/ | transport units containing    | the clarifications concerning |
| 47** | dry ice as a refrigerant      | the marking of fumigated      |
|      | (UK)*                         | units however we had some     |
|      |                               | suggested editorial           |
|      | This paper proposes revisions | amendments (see Note 1        |
|      | to Chapter 5.5. Revised       | following this summary        |
|      | provisions relevant to the    | document). With respect to    |
|      | use of fumigation warning     | the extensive changes and new |
|      | signs are proposed as well as | marking requirement for dry   |
|      | new provisions for dry ice    | ice, we believed the proposed |
|      | including a visual marking    | provisions should be further  |
|      | for dry ice in cargo          | reviewed and compared to      |
|      | transport units and a text    | existing provisions           |
|      | marking for small packages.   | throughout the modal          |
|      | The proposed marking for dry  | regulations before agreeing   |
|      | ice corresponds to a marking  | to a text in the UN Model     |
|      | currently recognized by IMO   | Regulations.                  |
|      | and an alternative dry ice    |                               |
|      | marking is also shown with    | **Result: The proposal was    |
|      | higher color contrast based   | not adopted however there was |
|      | on comments received by the   | support in principle. The UK  |
|      | UK on its previous proposal   | will submit a revised         |
|      | in this regard.               | proposal.**                   |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Permitting Dry Ice as a      | The U.S. supported this       |
| 007/ | Refrigerant (IATA)*           | proposal.                     |
| 48** |                               |                               |
|      | This paper proposes to amend  | **Result: The proposal was    |
|      | packing instruction P901      | adopted with minor amendments |
|      | (assigned to Chemical kits,   | provided by the UK and the    |
|      | UN 3316) to allow dry ice to  | US.**                         |
|      | be used to cool such kits. A  |                               |
|      | similar amendment was         |                               |
|      | recently introduced to the    |                               |
|      | ICAO Technical Instructions.  |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *References to ISO standards  | The U.S. participated in the  |
| 007/ | (ISO/EIGA)*                   | review of the standards       |
| 49** |                               | presented for adoption under  |
|      | This document proposes the    | Proposal 1, but indicated     |
|      | addition of several recently  | that we are still reviewing   |
|      | published ISO standards into  | the application of these      |
|      | Chapter 6.2 and proposes to   | standards in the UN Model     |
|      | update the reference to ISO   | Regulations. We agreed with   |
|      | 10297, as proposed by the     | the comments made by CGA in   |
|      | expert of the United Kingdom  | that ISO 18172-2 was not      |
|      | in 2007/35. The document also | ready for adoption into the   |
|      | proposes to amend the         | UN Model Regulations. We      |
|      | requirement for competent     | supported Proposals 2 and 3;  |
|      | authority approval of         | with the amendment that       |
|      | ultrasonic examination,       | Proposal 3 would reference    |
|      | taking into account the       | 6.2.1.6.1 (for                |
|      | discussion of 2007/9.         | requalification) instead of   |
|      |                               | 6.2.1.5.1 (initial testing).  |
|      |                               |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: Proposal 1 was      |
|      |                               | adopted except for ISO        |
|      |                               | 18172-2 which was withdrawn   |
|      |                               | by EIGA. Proposals 2 and 3    |
|      |                               | were adopted, along with the  |
|      |                               | amended reference to          |
|      |                               | 6.2.1.6.1.**                  |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Skin corrosion tests (ICCA)* | The U.S. supported the        |
| 007/ |                               | inclusion of an in vitro test |
| 50** | This paper proposes to adopt  | method for corrosivity        |
|      | a reference to three new OECD | testing. An in vitro method   |
| **   | Guidelines relevant to in     | has been authorized under a   |
| Inf. | vitro skin corrosion testing. | U.S. Special Permit for many  |
| 49** | The guidelines proposed to be | years. We noted however that  |
|      | referenced are:               | only method 435 provides for  |
|      |                               | the determination of a        |
|      | OECD-Guideline 430 -- "In     | packing group and is          |
|      | Vitro Skin Corrosion:         | therefore the only            |
|      | Transcutaneous Electrical     | appropriate method for        |
|      | Resistance Test (TER)"        | *classification* of a         |
|      |                               | corrosive material for        |
|      | OECD-Guideline 431 -- "In     | transportation purposes. We   |
|      | Vitro Skin Corrosion: Human   | suggested it may nonetheless  |
|      | Skin Model Test"              | be beneficial and appropriate |
|      |                               | to ensure that negative       |
|      | OECD-Guideline 435 -- "In     | results from methods 430 and  |
|      | Vitro Membrane Barrier Test   | 431 may be used to preclude   |
|      | Method for Skin Corrosion"    | further testing for transport |
|      |                               | classification purposes and   |
|      | ICCA proposes to amend        | proposed the following        |
|      | 2.8.2.4 as follows:           | wording for 2.8.2.4 via an    |
|      |                               | informal document:            |
|      | 2.8.2.4 In assigning the      |                               |
|      | packing group to a substance  | *2.8.2.4 In assigning the     |
|      | in accordance with 2.8.2.2,   | packing group to a substance  |
|      | account shall be taken of     | in accordance with 2.8.2.2,   |
|      | human experience in instances | account shall be taken of     |
|      | of accidental exposure. In    | human experience in instances |
|      | the absence of human          | of accidental exposure. In    |
|      | experience the grouping shall | the absence of human          |
|      | be based on data obtained     | experience the grouping shall |
|      | from experiments in           | be based on data obtained     |
|      | accordance with OECD          | from experiments in           |
|      | Guideline 404, **[430, 431 or | accordance with OECD          |
|      | 435.]{.underline}**           | Guideline 404 [or 435. A      |
|      |                               | substance which is determined |
|      | *Comments on                  | not to be corrosive in        |
|      | ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2007/50 --    | accordance with OECD Test     |
|      | Skin Corrosion Tests (USA)*   | Guideline 430 or OECD Test    |
|      |                               | Guideline 431 may be          |
|      | In this document we supported | considered to be not          |
|      | the ICCA proposal in          | corrosive for the purposes of |
|      | principle and offered a       | these Regulations without     |
|      | revised text based on our     | further                       |
|      | position on this proposal     | testing.]{.underline}"*       |
|      | (see discussion on right).    |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: The proposal as     |
|      |                               | amended by Inf.49 was adopted |
|      |                               | pending approval by the GHS   |
|      |                               | Sub-Committee.**              |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *In vitro test methods        | There are no proposals in     |
| Inf. | (ICCA/CEFIC)*                 | these papers.                 |
| 4    |                               |                               |
| -6** | In these three informal       |                               |
|      | documents, ICCA/CEFIC provide |                               |
|      | copies of the test methods    |                               |
|      | referenced in the above       |                               |
|      | paper.                        |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Optional use of fusible      | The U.S. supported this       |
| 007/ | elements on portable tanks    | proposal. We believe it will  |
| 51** | with a test pressure higher   | enhance transportation safety |
|      | than 2.65 bar for             | to allow the use of a fusible |
|      | organometallic Substances     | element for certain           |
|      | (ICCA)*                       | organometallic substances. We |
|      |                               | are aware of several          |
|      | This paper proposes to        | incidents in which fusible    |
|      | authorize fusible elements on | elements operated as intended |
|      | portable tanks for certain    | and drastically reduced the   |
|      | substances even when the test | consequences of what could    |
|      | pressure exceeds 2.65 bar.    | have been a much more serious |
|      | Currently portable tanks with | incident by allowing for a    |
|      | a test pressure exceeding     | controlled release of the     |
|      | 2.65 bar may not utilize      | material.                     |
|      | fusible elements. In addition |                               |
|      | the paper proposes to amend   | **Result: The proposal was    |
|      | 6.7.2.10.1 require fusible    | adopted with the operating    |
|      | elements shall operate at a   | temperatures for the fusible  |
|      | temperature between 100 °C    | elements amended to           |
|      | and 200 °C (currently 110-149 | 100-149C.**                   |
|      | °C).                          |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *UN Portable tank and MEGC    | The U.S. did not support this |
| 007/ | identification plates         | proposal. We are not          |
| 52** | (Canada)*                     | convinced the changes to the  |
|      |                               | specification plate markings  |
| **   | In this paper Canada proposes | in this proposal are          |
| Inf. | to amend the requirements     | warranted. Specifically, we   |
| 10** | applicable to specification   | do not support the            |
|      | markings for portable tanks.  | requirement to indicate in    |
|      | A standard format for         | the marking when surge plates |
|      | portable tank markings is     | are used and we do not        |
|      | proposed without change in    | support requiring the letters |
|      | substance to the required     | UN to be in the format shown  |
|      | marking elements. The only    | on a portable tank            |
|      | change in requirements would  | specification plate. Other    |
|      | be to require the visual UN   | experts expressed concern     |
|      | symbol shown below as opposed | over adding additional        |
|      | to the letters "UN". Canada   | marking elements to the plate |
|      | states this will better       | which already contains a      |
|      | identify tanks in transport   | significant amount of         |
|      | as UN specification portable  | information.                  |
|      | tanks.                        |                               |
|      |                               | We were not opposed however   |
|      | ![](medi                      | to the revised presentation   |
|      | a/image1.wmf){width="0.325in" | of the marking elements as    |
|      | h                             | proposed by Canada.           |
|      | eight="0.3326388888888889in"} |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: The proposal        |
|      | *Comments on                  | received support in           |
|      | ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2007/52       | principle. Canada will bring  |
|      | (Canada)*                     | a revised text with an        |
|      |                               | appropriate transition period |
|      | In this paper Canada makes    | to the next session.**        |
|      | minor editorial amendments to |                               |
|      | their proposal in 2007/52     |                               |
|      | (above) and also incorporates |                               |
|      | the wording proposed by       |                               |
|      | Belgium in 2007/56 regarding  |                               |
|      | an indication in the marking  |                               |
|      | when surge plates are         |                               |
|      | utilized.                     |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Proposals to amend the       | The U.S. supported this       |
| 007/ | criterion for classifying gas | proposal in principle and     |
| 53** | mixtures as oxidizing (EIGA)* | offered to work with EIGA and |
|      |                               | other interested competent    |
|      | This paper proposes to add    | authorities to resolve some   |
|      | the following note to 2.2.2.1 | editorial issues concerning   |
|      | (b) of the UN Model           | the text.                     |
|      | Regulations to clarify when a |                               |
|      | gas mixture is considered     | **Result: The proposal was    |
|      | more oxidizing than air:      | adopted with amendments       |
|      |                               | agreed to by an informal      |
|      | "NOTE: 'More oxidizing than   | working group. The U.S.       |
|      | air' means mixtures with more | participated in the working   |
|      | than 23.5% oxygen by volume   | group and supported he        |
|      | in nitrogen or an equivalent  | revisions made. It was also   |
|      | concentration of other        | agreed to delete SP 292 as    |
|      | oxidizing gases in other      | the newly adopted note        |
|      | gases with an oxidizing power | rendered the text of SP 292   |
|      | of OP \> 23.5% as determined  | superfluous.**                |
|      | by the latest revision of ISO |                               |
|      | 10156."                       |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Provisions concerning        | The U.S. supported this       |
| 007/ | training (DGAC/VOHMA)*        | proposal and the informal     |
| 54** |                               | document (Inf.15) submitted   |
|      | This paper proposes to amend  | by Canada. We believe that it |
| **   | paragraph 1.3.1 concerning    | is important to provide an    |
| Inf. | training as follows:          | interim period during which   |
| 15** |                               | an untrained person may work  |
|      | "Persons engaged in the       | under the direct supervision  |
|      | transport of dangerous goods  | of a trained and qualified    |
|      | shall have received training  | person.                       |
|      | in the contents of dangerous  |                               |
|      | goods requirements            | **Result: The text as         |
|      | commensurate with their       | proposed by Canada in Inf. 15 |
|      | responsibilities. [An         | was adopted.**                |
|      | employee shall receive the    |                               |
|      | training required by 1.3.2    |                               |
|      | within 90 days of employment  |                               |
|      | and in the interim period may |                               |
|      | only perform functions, for   |                               |
|      | which required training has   |                               |
|      | not yet been provided, under  |                               |
|      | the direct supervision of a   |                               |
|      | trained and qualified         |                               |
|      | person.]{.underline} Training |                               |
|      | requirements specific to      |                               |
|      | security of dangerous goods   |                               |
|      | in Chapter 1.4 shall also be  |                               |
|      | addressed."                   |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | In this paper Canada          |                               |
|      | expresses support in          |                               |
|      | principle for the proposals   |                               |
|      | in 2007/54 but suggests that  |                               |
|      | a definitive time period      |                               |
|      | should not be mentioned.      |                               |
|      | Additionally, several         |                               |
|      | editorial amendments are      |                               |
|      | suggested.                    |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Systematic approach for      | The U.S. did not support this |
| 007/ | colours and appearance of     | proposal. Although this       |
| 55** | pictograms (placards)         | proposal was much more        |
|      | according to the GHS          | limited in scope and effect   |
|      | classification (CTIF)*        | than previous CTIF proposals  |
|      |                               | (i.e. no new colors are       |
|      | This paper proposes to amend  | introduced etc.), the         |
|      | the existing transport labels | suggested effect is to        |
|      | to improve their visibility.  | improve contrast between the  |
|      | In particular CTIF is         | pictograms and their          |
|      | concerned that in low light   | background colors by ensuring |
|      | conditions various pictograms | all pictograms are in white   |
|      | cannot be identified properly | on the below labels. This     |
|      | because the contrast between  | achievement is not            |
|      | the background color and      | necessarily an improvement in |
|      | symbol is insufficient. The   | all respects. We received     |
|      | major thrust of the proposal  | input from modal experts that |
|      | is to ensure that only white  | the black pictograms actually |
|      | symbols and numbers should    | resist fading and in some     |
|      | appear on black, green, red   | cases have been the only      |
|      | or blue backgrounds.          | recognizable component on a   |
|      |                               | faded label or placard. We    |
|      |                               | also recognize that the       |
|      |                               | labels in use have existed in |
|      |                               | their present form for many   |
|      |                               | years and that such a change  |
|      |                               | would be broad in its         |
|      |                               | implications and should not   |
|      |                               | be undertaken hastily.        |
|      |                               |                               |
|      |                               | ![](media/image2.jpeg)        |
|      |                               | {width="0.9520833333333333in" |
|      |                               | height="0.9520833333333       |
|      |                               | 333in"}![](media/image3.jpeg) |
|      |                               | {width="0.9506944444444444in" |
|      |                               | height="0.9506944444444       |
|      |                               | 444in"}![](media/image4.jpeg) |
|      |                               | {width="0.9506944444444444in" |
|      |                               | height="0.9506944444444       |
|      |                               | 444in"}![](media/image5.jpeg) |
|      |                               | {width="0.9715277777777778in" |
|      |                               | height="0.9715277777777       |
|      |                               | 778in"}![](media/image6.jpeg) |
|      |                               | {width="0.9305555555555556in" |
|      |                               | h                             |
|      |                               | eight="0.9236111111111112in"} |
|      |                               |                               |
|      |                               | **Result:** **The proposal    |
|      |                               | received no support and was   |
|      |                               | not adopted. Several          |
|      |                               | delegations expressed         |
|      |                               | concerns similar to ours.**   |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **2  | *Tanks -- Degree of filling   | We were not convinced this    |
| 007/ | (Belgium)*                    | proposal was absolutely       |
| 56** |                               | necessary. We believe that    |
|      | Currently 4.2.1.9.6 a) of the | the use of surge plates is a  |
|      | UN MR requires that "portable | logistical concern that is    |
|      | tanks intended for the        | adequately addressed in       |
|      | carriage of liquids or molten | practice. We were not aware   |
|      | solids with a viscosity below | of any incidents              |
|      | 2680 mm2/s shall be filled to | demonstrating a need for an   |
|      | not less than 80% or not more | indication of the use of      |
|      | than 20% of their capacity    | surge plates in the tank's    |
|      | when they are not divided by  | specification markings.       |
|      | partitions or surge plates    |                               |
|      | into sections of not more     | **Result: The general         |
|      | than 7500 litres capacity."   | consensus among the           |
|      |                               | Sub-Committee was that the    |
|      | In this paper Belgium points  | marking would be beneficial   |
|      | out that there is no          | in certain instances. The     |
|      | indication on the tank        | proposal, including a         |
|      | markings which indicate that  | transitional provision, was   |
|      | surge plates are present      | adopted.**                    |
|      | within the tank. Belgium      |                               |
|      | proposes to amend 6.7.2.20.1  |                               |
|      | as follows:                   |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *"Water capacity at 20° C     |                               |
|      | \_\_\_\_\_ litres; **[this    |                               |
|      | indication is to be followed  |                               |
|      | by the symbol "S" when the    |                               |
|      | shell is divided by surge     |                               |
|      | plates into sections of not   |                               |
|      | more than 7500 litres         |                               |
|      | capacity;]{.underline}***     |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *Water capacity of each       |                               |
|      | compartment at 20° C          |                               |
|      | \_\_\_\_\_ litres; **[this    |                               |
|      | indication is to be followed  |                               |
|      | by the symbol "S" when the    |                               |
|      | compartment is divided by     |                               |
|      | surge plates into sections of |                               |
|      | not more than 7500 litres     |                               |
|      | capacity.]{.underline}**"*    |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Info |                               |                               |
| rmal |                               |                               |
| D    |                               |                               |
| ocum |                               |                               |
| ents |                               |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| *    | *Exceptions for certain       | U.S. proposal                 |
| *Inf | articles containing Division  |                               |
| .8** | 2.2 gases (USA)*              | **Result: The proposal        |
|      |                               | received broad support        |
|      | The primary driver for this   | however some delegations      |
|      | U.S. proposal was a paper     | favored including other items |
|      | submitted to the ICAO         | within the listing. In        |
|      | Dangerous Goods Panel by the  | addition there were several   |
|      | member nominated by Japan     | minor editorial comments      |
|      | regarding certain light bulbs | made. The U.S. will           |
|      | which contained a Division    | coordinate a draft with       |
|      | 2.2 gas (xenon) under         | Sweden, Belgium, France,      |
|      | pressure. The Panel,          | Japan, and the UK for         |
|      | including the U.S. member,    | submission at the next        |
|      | generally agreed that these   | session.**                    |
|      | bulbs pose no risk as         |                               |
|      | packaged for transport,       |                               |
|      | however it was agreed that a  |                               |
|      | multimodal solution was       |                               |
|      | preferable. The proposal also |                               |
|      | addresses balls used for      |                               |
|      | sports and tires, which are   |                               |
|      | provided exceptions under 49  |                               |
|      | CFR 173.307.                  |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | The UN Model Regulations      |                               |
|      | already contain an exception  |                               |
|      | for carbonated beverages (see |                               |
|      | 2.2.1.1) and it is suggested  |                               |
|      | that this note be amended to  |                               |
|      | read as follows:              |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *"NOTE: The following are not |                               |
|      | subject to these              |                               |
|      | regulations:*                 |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *- Carbonated beverages*      |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *- Balls used for sports*     |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *- Tires*                     |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *- Light bulbs provided they  |                               |
|      | are packaged so that the      |                               |
|      | effects of any rupture of the |                               |
|      | bulb will be contained within |                               |
|      | the package."*                |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| *    | *Informal Working Group on    | The U.S. is not attending the |
| *Inf | Desensitized Explosives       | German hosted meeting on      |
| .9** | (Germany)*                    | December 17. We have          |
|      |                               | consistently voiced our       |
|      | In this paper Germany         | opinion that this is not an   |
|      | provides details and a        | issue. We believe the current |
|      | registration form for the     | provisions are adequate. We   |
|      | scheduled informal working    | recognize that this work      |
|      | group on desensitized         | might have some impact on     |
|      | explosives meeting to be held | future amendments to the UN   |
|      | Monday 17 December 2007 in    | Recommendations and will      |
|      | Berlin, at the Federal        | monitor progress of this      |
|      | Institute for Material        | working group.                |
|      | Research and Testing          |                               |
|      | (Bundesanstalt für            |                               |
|      | Materialforschung und         |                               |
|      | --prüfung, BAM), Unter den    |                               |
|      | Eichen 87. 12207 Berlin.      |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | The focus of the meeting will |                               |
|      | be to develop a               |                               |
|      | classification scheme         |                               |
|      | suitable to classify          |                               |
|      | desensitized explosives in    |                               |
|      | part 2 of the GHS and to      |                               |
|      | develop a proposal for        |                               |
|      | suitable hazard communication |                               |
|      | elements for desensitized     |                               |
|      | explosives.                   |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Developing and maintaining   | There were no proposals in    |
| Inf. | experts on the regulations    | this paper. The U.S.          |
| 11** | applicable to safe, secure,   | expressed our support fpr     |
|      | and efficient transport of    | COSTHA's goals of investing   |
|      | dangerous goods (COSTHA)*     | in the future of dangerous    |
|      |                               | goods transportation by       |
|      | In this paper COSTHA requests | developing and maintaining    |
|      | the Sub-Committee to note the | resources critical to         |
|      | importance of the need for    | maintaining a high level of   |
|      | developing and maintaining    | expertise in the field.       |
|      | the expert resources that     |                               |
|      | will be required for carrying | **Result: The issue will be   |
|      | on the work of this           | considered further at the     |
|      | Sub-Committee as well as      | next session.**               |
|      | providing expert employees    |                               |
|      | capable of performing the     |                               |
|      | functions applicable to       |                               |
|      | preparation, transport, and   |                               |
|      | enforcement that effect the   |                               |
|      | safe transportation of        |                               |
|      | dangerous goods. COSTHA       |                               |
|      | invites all interested        |                               |
|      | experts and NGO               |                               |
|      | representatives to            |                               |
|      | participate in this           |                               |
|      | initiative and to partner     |                               |
|      | with us in identifying        |                               |
|      | opportunities to achieve the  |                               |
|      | goal so critical to the       |                               |
|      | future success of this        |                               |
|      | Sub-Committee.                |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Opportunities to Reduce      | There were no proposals in    |
| Inf. | Impediments to Multimodal and | this paper. The U.S. has      |
| 12** | Intermodal Transportation of  | played a leading role in this |
|      | Dangerous Goods (VOHMA)*      | initiative and shares VOHMA's |
|      |                               | goals. We plan to continue    |
|      | Distinguished experts of      | working with VOHMA as well as |
|      | governments, NGO              | stakeholders within other     |
|      | representatives, and all      | modal agencies and NGOs other |
|      | members of this Sub-Committee | to further address this issue |
|      | are invited to note the work  | over the course of the        |
|      | currently in progress, to     | biennium. We note that the    |
|      | provide input and to          | ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel    |
|      | participate to whatever       | has recently amended the ICAO |
|      | degree practicable. VOHMA     | TI to allow electronic        |
|      | will provide additional       | documentation as an           |
|      | information on impediments to | alternative to paper          |
|      | intermodal transportation as  | documentation under specific  |
|      | identified and report         | conditions.                   |
|      | recommendations to reduce or  |                               |
|      | eliminate such impediments in | **Result: The Sub-Committee   |
|      | global commerce as they are   | expressed general support for |
|      | developed.                    | additional work on this topic |
|      |                               | and agreed that a plan of     |
|      |                               | action should be considered   |
|      |                               | at the next session in order  |
|      |                               | to formalize a multi-year     |
|      |                               | phased project.**             |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Ethylene Oxide (UN1040)      | The U.S. supported this       |
| Inf. | Sterilization Units (UK)*     | proposal. An equivalent       |
| 14** |                               | special provision exists in   |
|      | This paper proposes to        | the HMR as SP A59.            |
|      | authorize the transport of    |                               |
|      | small quantities (30 mL per   | **Result: The proposal was    |
|      | inner/300 mL per outer) of    | adopted.**                    |
|      | ethylene oxide in             |                               |
|      | sterilization devices in      |                               |
|      | accordance with the excepted  |                               |
|      | quantity provisions of        |                               |
|      | Chapter 3.5. The requirements |                               |
|      | are based on a long-standing  |                               |
|      | special provision (A131) in   |                               |
|      | the ICAO TI.                  |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Meeting and Schedule         | The U.S. supported an open    |
| Inf. | (Canada)*                     | discussion on this subject.   |
| 16** |                               | We wanted to hear the views   |
|      | In this paper Canada suggests | of other delegates and also   |
|      | to modify the UN SCOE TDG and | of the UN Secretariat. If a   |
|      | GHS meetings to schedule      | majority agree the proposed   |
|      | three meetings per biennium   | schedule is feasible we could |
|      | rather than four.             | support this proposal.        |
|      |                               |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: Opinions varied     |
|      |                               | within the Sub-Committee as   |
|      |                               | to whether a change to the    |
|      |                               | current schedule was          |
|      |                               | desirable. Canada agreed to   |
|      |                               | submit a revised proposal     |
|      |                               | with several options based on |
|      |                               | further consultation with the |
|      |                               | Secretary. The revised        |
|      |                               | proposal will list the pros   |
|      |                               | and cons of each option.**    |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Bottom closing devices for   | The U.S. was not opposed in   |
| Inf. | portable tanks for Packing    | principle to this proposal    |
| 17** | Group I solids (Australia)*   | but was uncertain the         |
|      |                               | proposed wording presented    |
|      | At its last session the UN    | the best solution. We agreed  |
|      | SCOE adopted a U.S. proposal  | with Australia in the         |
|      | to authorize bottom outlets   | importance of ensuring that   |
|      | for tanks used for the        | unintentional opening of the  |
|      | transport of solids. This was | valve due to impact or other  |
|      | done as a note to the         | event is prevented however we |
|      | portable tank table in        | believe this is already       |
|      | 4.2.5.2.6. In this paper,     | covered by 6.7.2.5.1 which    |
|      | Australia proposes to add     | states that filling and       |
|      | additional text to the note   | discharge devices must be     |
|      | to require external stop      | capable of being secured      |
|      | valves to be designed to      | against unintended opening.   |
|      | prevent unintended opening as | In addition, the language in  |
|      | follows:                      | 6.7.2.6.2(a)(i) relates to    |
|      |                               | control devices for the       |
|      | *When this column indicates   | operation of the valve is     |
|      | "not allowed", bottom         | specific to internal valves   |
|      | openings are not permitted    | and would not make sense for  |
|      | when the substance to be      | an external stop valve.       |
|      | transported is a liquid (see  |                               |
|      | 6.7.2.6.1). When the          | **Result: The U.S. worked     |
|      | substance to be transported   | with Australia and DGAC on    |
|      | is a solid at all             | revised wording that would be |
|      | temperatures encountered      | acceptable to all parties.    |
|      | under normal conditions of    | The revised wording was       |
|      | transport, bottom openings    | adopted.**                    |
|      | conforming to the             |                               |
|      | requirements of 6.7.2.6.2 are |                               |
|      | authorized **[provided        |                               |
|      | external stop valves are so   |                               |
|      | designed as to prevent any    |                               |
|      | unintended opening through    |                               |
|      | impact or other               |                               |
|      | event\".]{.underline}***      |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | Special Packing Provisions    | The United States agrees that |
| Inf. | for goods of Class 1          | clarification to the text is  |
| 18** | (Australia)                   | warranted, but is concerned   |
|      |                               | that the Australian proposal  |
|      | In this paper Australia       | may not fully address the     |
|      | proposes to clarify the       | issue. The danger of          |
|      | requirement in section        | \"unnecessary confinement\"   |
|      | 4.1.5.5 regarding the         | when using metal packagings   |
|      | prohibition against PG I      | for Class 1 materials relates |
|      | packaging for certain         | to the pressure rise time     |
|      | explosives. Australia         | within the container. This    |
|      | proposes the last sentence be | can provide certain explosive |
|      | amended to read:              | and propellant compositions   |
|      |                               | the conditions to transit     |
|      | "**[To avoid unnecessary      | from deflagration to          |
|      | confinement,]{.underline}**   | detonation in the event of a  |
|      | metal packages shall not be   | fire during transport. Those  |
|      | capable of meeting the test   | packing group test            |
|      | criteria of Packing Group I." | requirements which are        |
|      |                               | concerned with structural     |
|      |                               | integrity under conditions of |
|      |                               | dropping a certain height are |
|      |                               | not of concern. The leakproof |
|      |                               | test and hydraulic test       |
|      |                               | requirements for PG I         |
|      |                               | packages in 6.1.5 are more    |
|      |                               | relevant to the associated    |
|      |                               | Class 1 risk. Therefore, we   |
|      |                               | suggest the proposal be       |
|      |                               | modified to read: "To avoid   |
|      |                               | unnecessary confinement,      |
|      |                               | metal packagings shall not be |
|      |                               | capable of meeting the        |
|      |                               | leakproof test or hydraulic   |
|      |                               | test requirements of Packing  |
|      |                               | Group I.\"                    |
|      |                               |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: This paper will be  |
|      |                               | further considered in July by |
|      |                               | the Explosives Working        |
|      |                               | Group.**                      |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Package requirements for     | The U.S. was not convinced    |
| Inf. | Organochlorine Pesticides     | this proposal had merit. We   |
| 19** | (Australia)*                  | stated that the packaging in  |
|      |                               | question obviously did not    |
|      | In this paper Australia       | meet the general requirements |
|      | recounts an incident in which | of Part 4 as the closure did  |
|      | an organochlorine pesticide   | not perform its function      |
|      | was exposed to air within its | during transport. In addition |
|      | outer package due to poor     | we noted Australia's proposal |
|      | inner packaging arrangement   | would further limit the named |
|      | which employed only a "twist  | pesticides to transport in    |
|      | tie". The result was the      | combination packagings.       |
|      | build-up of toxic fumes       |                               |
|      | within the container which    | **Result: The proposal was    |
|      | led to exposure of transport  | not adopted. Australia may    |
|      | personnel one of which        | submit a revised proposal at  |
|      | required medical attention.   | the July session.**           |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | The Expert from Australia     |                               |
|      | recommends that a new special |                               |
|      | packing provision be applied  |                               |
|      | to P002 to require inner      |                               |
|      | packagings for such           |                               |
|      | pesticides to be hermetically |                               |
|      | sealed as follows:            |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *"PPXX: For UN2761 and UN3155 |                               |
|      | only combination packages are |                               |
|      | to be used. The inner         |                               |
|      | packages shall be sift proof, |                               |
|      | tear proof and hermetically   |                               |
|      | sealed."*                     |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Definition of phlegmatized   | The U.S. is not opposed in    |
| Inf. | (Australia)*                  | principle to including a      |
| 21** |                               | definition for "phlegmatized" |
|      | In this paper Australia       | in Chapter 1.2.               |
|      | proposes to introduce a       |                               |
|      | definition for "phlegmatized" | **Result: This paper will be  |
|      | into Chapter 1.2 as follows:  | considered in July by the     |
|      |                               | Explosives Working Group.**   |
|      | ***phlegmatized** means the   |                               |
|      | addition of an agent (or      |                               |
|      | "phlegmatizer") to an         |                               |
|      | explosive to facilitate its   |                               |
|      | safe handling and transport.  |                               |
|      | The phlegmatizer acts as      |                               |
|      | barrier between molecules of  |                               |
|      | the explosive to slow down    |                               |
|      | the heat transfer and any     |                               |
|      | resultant reaction and reduce |                               |
|      | impact and friction           |                               |
|      | sensitivity. Typical          |                               |
|      | phlegmatizing agents include  |                               |
|      | wax, paper, water, alcohol,   |                               |
|      | oils such as petroleum jelly  |                               |
|      | and paraffin as well as       |                               |
|      | polymers such as              |                               |
|      | chlorofluropolymers.*         |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Revision of Section          | The U.S. was not opposed to   |
| Inf. | 7.1.3.2.3 (Australia)*        | this clarification. The       |
| 22** |                               | additional note which         |
|      | In this paper Australia       | provides a comprehensive list |
|      | comments on the existing text | of nitrates may be helpful to |
|      | of 7.1.3.2.3 which reads as   | some users of the Model       |
|      | follows:                      | Regulations.                  |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *Blasting explosives (except  | **Result: This paper was      |
|      | EXPLOSIVE, BLASTING, TYPE C,  | deferred to the July          |
|      | UN 0083) may be stowed        | session.**                    |
|      | together with AMMONIUM        |                               |
|      | NITRATE and inorganic         |                               |
|      | nitrates of Class 5.1 (UN     |                               |
|      | Nos. 1942 and 2067) and       |                               |
|      | alkali metal nitrates (e.g.,  |                               |
|      | UN 1486) and alkaline earth   |                               |
|      | metal nitrates (e.g., UN      |                               |
|      | 1454) provided the aggregate  |                               |
|      | is treated as blasting        |                               |
|      | explosives under Class 1 for  |                               |
|      | the purposes of placarding,   |                               |
|      | segregations, stowage and     |                               |
|      | maximum permissible load.*    |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | Australia proposes to amend   |                               |
|      | the text to clarify which     |                               |
|      | materials are considered      |                               |
|      | alkali metal and alkali earth |                               |
|      | nitrates. The revised         |                               |
|      | proposed text is as follows:  |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *Blasting explosives (except  |                               |
|      | EXPLOSIVE, BLASTING, TYPE C,  |                               |
|      | UN 0083) may be stowed        |                               |
|      | together with AMMONIUM        |                               |
|      | NITRATE and inorganic         |                               |
|      | nitrates of Class 5.1 (UN     |                               |
|      | Nos. 1942 and 2067) and       |                               |
|      | alkali metal nitrates and     |                               |
|      | alkaline earth metal          |                               |
|      | nitrates, provided the        |                               |
|      | aggregate is treated as       |                               |
|      | blasting explosives under     |                               |
|      | Class 1 for the purposes of   |                               |
|      | placarding, segregations,     |                               |
|      | stowage and maximum           |                               |
|      | permissible load**.***        |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *Note: Alkali metal nitrates  |                               |
|      | include UN1451 (Caesium       |                               |
|      | Nitrate), UN1498 (Sodium      |                               |
|      | Nitrate), UN2722 (Lithium     |                               |
|      | Nitrate) and UN1486           |                               |
|      | (Potassium Nitrate). Alkali   |                               |
|      | earth metal nitrates include  |                               |
|      | UN1446 (Barium Nitrate),      |                               |
|      | UN1474 (Magnesium Nitrate),   |                               |
|      | UN1507 (Strontium Nitrate),   |                               |
|      | UN2464 (Beryllium Nitrate)    |                               |
|      | and UN1454 (Calcium           |                               |
|      | Nitrate).*                    |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Clarification Regarding      | The U.S. supported this       |
| Inf. | Information Required on the   | proposal.                     |
| 23** | Dangerous Goods Transport     |                               |
|      | Document (VOHMA)*             | **Result: The proposal was    |
|      |                               | adopted.**                    |
|      | In this paper VOHMA discusses |                               |
|      | the requirement regarding     |                               |
|      | placement of the words        |                               |
|      | "RESIDUE LAST CONTAINED" or   |                               |
|      | "EMPTY UNCLEANED" on the      |                               |
|      | transport document. The       |                               |
|      | current requirement states    |                               |
|      | the words must appear before  |                               |
|      | or after the proper shipping  |                               |
|      | name. VOHMA proposes to amend |                               |
|      | the text to allow the words   |                               |
|      | to appear before or after the |                               |
|      | basic description as follows: |                               |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | *5.4.1.4.3 (b) Empty          |                               |
|      | uncleaned packagings, bulk    |                               |
|      | containers, and tanks: Empty  |                               |
|      | means of containment,         |                               |
|      | (including packagings, IBCs,  |                               |
|      | bulk containers, portable     |                               |
|      | tanks, tank-vehicles and      |                               |
|      | tank-wagons) which contain    |                               |
|      | the residue of dangerous      |                               |
|      | goods of classes other than   |                               |
|      | class 7 shall be described as |                               |
|      | such by, for example, placing |                               |
|      | the words "EMPTY UNCLEANED"   |                               |
|      | or "RESIDUE LAST CONTAINED"   |                               |
|      | before or after the ~~proper  |                               |
|      | shipping name~~ [basic        |                               |
|      | description required at       |                               |
|      | 5.4.1.4.1 paragraphs (a)      |                               |
|      | through (e)."]{.underline}*   |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Outcome of the 12th Session  | There are no proposals in     |
| Inf. | of the IMO Dangerous goods,   | this paper.                   |
| 24** | Solid Cargoes and Containers  |                               |
|      | (DSC) Sub-Committee meeting   | 1)  The U.S. did not support  |
|      | (London, 17-21 September      |     the requirement for a     |
|      | 2007) and its associated      |     full transport document   |
|      | Editorial and Technical Group |     for Excepted Quantities   |
|      | meeting (Brussels, 24-28      |     and did not support the   |
|      | September 2007) (IMO          |     decision taken by the E&T |
|      | Secretariat)*                 |     on this issue. We did not |
|      |                               |     agree with other members  |
|      | This document reports on      |     of the E&T that the DSC   |
|      | several decisions taken by    |     had agreed to require     |
|      | the IMO DSC Sub-Committee and |     full documentation and do |
|      | the E&T Group of interest to  |     not believe as other      |
|      | the UN SCOE. Among the        |     members of the E&T        |
|      | decisions noted:              |     suggested that SOLAS      |
|      |                               |     would preclude other      |
|      | 1)  The DSC SC agreed to      |     options such as the use   |
|      |     require full              |     of an informal document   |
|      |     documentation for         |     with less prescriptive    |
|      |     excepted quantities.      |     information than a full   |
|      |                               |     dangerous goods           |
|      | 2)  The DSC SC supported the  |     description. However we   |
|      |     proposed approach by the  |     were significantly        |
|      |     UN SCOE for a new marking |     outvoted on the issue and |
|      |     for limited quantities.   |     ultimately the E&T        |
|      |     The DSC agreed that if    |     decided to require full   |
|      |     the marking were agreed   |     documentation for         |
|      |     to the language regarding |     Excepted Quantities just  |
|      |     retail goods in the Code  |     as is currently required  |
|      |     could be eliminated, and  |     for Limited Quantities.   |
|      |     the marking for CTUs      |                               |
|      |     could be amended to be a  | 2)  We noted that the         |
|      |     placard sized version of  |     approach recommended by   |
|      |     the marking agreed to by  |     the UN SCOE with respect  |
|      |     the UN SCOE. Full         |     to a new marking for      |
|      |     documentation would       |     limited quantities was    |
|      |     continue to be required.  |     well-received. We are     |
|      |                               |     interested in further     |
|      | 3)  Language regarding        |     dialogue on this issue    |
|      |     training of shore-based   |     prior to the July, 2008   |
|      |     personnel was agreed to   |     UN SCOE session.          |
|      |     as follows:               |                               |
|      |                               | 3)  We noted that the         |
|      |     *"Companies engaging      |     language regarding        |
|      |     shore-based personnel in  |     training agreed to by IMO |
|      |     such activities shall     |     seems to be a practical   |
|      |     determine which staff     |     solution to the language  |
|      |     will be trained, what     |     currently under review at |
|      |     levels of training they   |     the UN SCOE. We believe   |
|      |     require and the training  |     this approach should be   |
|      |     methods used to enable    |     duly noted by the UN SCOE |
|      |     them to comply with the   |     when considering similar  |
|      |     provisions of the         |     amended training          |
|      |     IMDG Code. This training  |     provisions within the     |
|      |     shall be provided or      |     Model Regulations.        |
|      |     verified upon employment  |                               |
|      |     in a position involving   |                               |
|      |     dangerous goods           |                               |
|      |     transport. For personnel  |                               |
|      |     who have not yet received |                               |
|      |     the required training,    |                               |
|      |     the companies shall       |                               |
|      |     ensure that those         |                               |
|      |     personnel may only        |                               |
|      |     perform functions under   |                               |
|      |     the direct supervision of |                               |
|      |     a trained person. The     |                               |
|      |     training shall be         |                               |
|      |     periodically supplemented |                               |
|      |     with refresher training   |                               |
|      |     to take account of        |                               |
|      |     changes in regulations    |                               |
|      |     and practice. The         |                               |
|      |     competent authority, or   |                               |
|      |     its authorized body, may  |                               |
|      |     audit the company to      |                               |
|      |     verify the effectiveness  |                               |
|      |     of the system in place,   |                               |
|      |     in providing training of  |                               |
|      |     staff commensurate with   |                               |
|      |     their role and            |                               |
|      |     responsibilities in the   |                               |
|      |     transport chain."*        |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Assignment of SP 274         | The U.S. did not support this |
| Inf. | (CEFIC)*                      | proposal. We find it          |
| 25** |                               | unfortunate that the Joint    |
|      | In this paper CEFIC presents  | Meeting has been unable to    |
|      | the results of lengthy        | agree to harmonize with the   |
|      | discussions at the European   | requirements of the UN Model  |
|      | Joint Meeting (ADR/RID/ADN)   | Regulations on what we view   |
|      | and the conclusions reached   | as a rather simple issue. As  |
|      | with respect to the           | a result, the ADR/RID/ADN     |
|      | requirement for a technical   | currently require a technical |
|      | name for certain generic      | name for a number of          |
|      | descriptions. The UN SCOE had | substances not required to    |
|      | previously removed the        | bear a technical name under   |
|      | technical name requirement    | other modal or national       |
|      | for a number of entries which | regulations. We have reviewed |
|      | were considered to provide    | the entries in question and   |
|      | sufficient information within | believe there is sufficient   |
|      | the proper shipping name. In  | information in the proper     |
|      | this paper CEFIC proposes     | shipping name for the entries |
|      | that the UN consider          | in question. We do not        |
|      | assigning SP 274 to a number  | believe for example that it   |
|      | of entries which are not      | is the intent of the          |
|      | currently required to be      | technical name requirement to |
|      | supplemented with a technical | be used for identifying       |
|      | name.                         | forbidden materials or marine |
|      |                               | pollutants. We do not support |
|      |                               | the addition of SP 274 to the |
|      |                               | entries in question.          |
|      |                               |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: The SCOE agreed to  |
|      |                               | study the specific materials  |
|      |                               | in question in detail and     |
|      |                               | address the issue at the      |
|      |                               | following session. The U.S.   |
|      |                               | will provide specific input   |
|      |                               | on each category of materials |
|      |                               | addressed within the          |
|      |                               | proposal.**                   |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Revised AEROBAL position on  | As stated in our previous     |
| Inf. | the alternatives to the hot   | position on 2007/33, we did   |
| 27** | water bath test (AEROBAL)*    | not share AEROBAL's concerns  |
|      |                               | with respect to the hot water |
|      | In this paper AEROBAL         | bath alternatives agreed to   |
|      | withdraws its proposal as     | by the UN SCOE.               |
|      | stated in                     |                               |
|      | SG/AC.10/C.3/2007/33 with     | **Result: AEROBAL withdrew    |
|      | respect to the hot water bath | their proposal for this       |
|      | test for aerosols.            | session to allow time to work |
|      |                               | with FEA and other interested |
|      |                               | industries on a solution.     |
|      |                               | They intent to bring a new    |
|      |                               | proposal to the next session  |
|      |                               | of the Sub-Committee.**       |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Revised text for the Guiding | The U.S. expressed            |
| Inf. | Principles (Secretariat)*     | appreciation for the work     |
| 28** |                               | undertaken by the Secretariat |
|      | In this paper the UN          | in finalizing this document.  |
|      | Secretariat reproduces the    |                               |
|      | most recent version of the    | **Result: The SCOE agreed to  |
|      | Guiding Principles for        | provide comments to the       |
|      | development of the UN Model   | Secretariat by email. The     |
|      | Regulations. A number of      | Secretariat will post the     |
|      | editorial amendments are      | document on the UN website    |
|      | proposed by the Secretariat.  | once it has been finalized.   |
|      | Once finalized this document  | The Chairman asked the U.S.   |
|      | will be posted on the UN      | to work with the Secretary to |
|      | website.                      | review the text placed in     |
|      |                               | square brackets.**            |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Permeation through the walls | The U.S. met with Germany to  |
| Inf. | of plastics packagings,       | discuss the results of their  |
| 30** | including IBCs, building up   | research and is evaluating    |
|      | the hazard of an explosive    | Germany's findings. The HMR   |
|      | atmosphere in freight         | currently have packaging      |
|      | containers (Germany)*         | provisions in place to        |
|      |                               | address permeation concerns   |
|      | In this paper Germany         | and we are not opposed to     |
|      | discusses the results of a    | introducing requirements      |
|      | research project entitled     | similar to those in the HMR   |
|      | "Permeation during transport  | within the UN Model           |
|      | of dangerous goods in         | Regulations. We are concerned |
|      | containers -- determination   | however with some of the      |
|      | of potentially explosive      | potential proposals to which  |
|      | mixtures during transport of  | Germany alludes, such as a    |
|      | dangerous goods in containers | marking on transport units.   |
|      | under normal conditions of    |                               |
|      | carriage". The paper asks for | **Result: Germany requested   |
|      | comments on the conclusions   | comments for a possible       |
|      | reached with the objective of | future proposal.**            |
|      | a formal proposal for July,   |                               |
|      | 2008.                         |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Transport of Biological      | The U.S. did not favor        |
| Inf. | Materials -- UN Model         | extensive changes as          |
| 32** | Regulations (European         | suggested by this proposal.   |
|      | Biosafety Association)*       | We recognize that a great     |
|      |                               | deal of effort was spent in   |
|      | In this paper EBSA expresses  | achieving the current         |
|      | concern with the current      | requirements for Division 6.2 |
|      | requirements for GMOs and     | materials and we believe that |
|      | GMMOs within the UN Model     | changes should be kept to a   |
|      | Regulations. A number of      | bare minimum in order to      |
|      | detailed comments are made    | achieve a high level of       |
|      | and the opinion of the UN     | compliance with the current   |
|      | SCOE is sought with the       | revised regulatory framework. |
|      | objective of a follow up      | However we are not opposed to |
|      | proposal in July.             | considering carefully whether |
|      |                               | minor amendments are needed   |
|      |                               | for example to address        |
|      |                               | pathogens affecting plants.   |
|      |                               |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: It was agreed that  |
|      |                               | Sub-Committee members would   |
|      |                               | correspond with their health  |
|      |                               | authorities and determine     |
|      |                               | whether EBSA's proposal to    |
|      |                               | add provisions for transport  |
|      |                               | of infectious substances      |
|      |                               | affecting plants. The         |
|      |                               | Sub-Committee suggested that  |
|      |                               | EBSA consider separating the  |
|      |                               | proposals to deal with plant  |
|      |                               | pathogens and GMOs.**         |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *"Re-Bottling/Cross Bottling" | There were no proposals in    |
| Inf. | of Composite IBCs             | this paper. The U.S. agrees   |
| 33** | (Australia/Canada/UK)*        | that replacement bottles for  |
|      |                               | composite IBCs must conform   |
|      | In this paper concern is      | to original specifications in |
|      | expressed over the use of     | order to preclude retesting   |
|      | inner bottles in composite    | for conformance with an       |
|      | IBCs that do not conform to   | authorized design type.       |
|      | original specifications which | However we do not agree that  |
|      | are purchased from            | it is necessarily the case    |
|      | manufacturers other than the  | that only the original        |
|      | original supplier. The paper  | manufacturer can supply an    |
|      | states that this action       | inner bottle conforming to    |
|      | invalidates the original      | original specifications. We   |
|      | design type approval and      | believe it is the             |
|      | seeks comments on the issue   | owner's/shipper's             |
|      | in preparation for a future   | responsibility to ensure the  |
|      | proposal to clarify that this | replacement bottle conforms   |
|      | practice is contrary to the   | to original specifications    |
|      | Model Regulations.            | prior to offering the IBC for |
|      |                               | transport.                    |
|      |                               |                               |
|      |                               | **Result: A correspondence    |
|      |                               | working group was             |
|      |                               | established, to be            |
|      |                               | coordinated by the expert     |
|      |                               | from the UK. The              |
|      |                               | Sub-Committee agreed to terms |
|      |                               | of reference for the          |
|      |                               | correspondence group. The     |
|      |                               | correspondence group will     |
|      |                               | consider the issues presented |
|      |                               | in Inf.33 and submit a report |
|      |                               | at the next session of the    |
|      |                               | Sub-Committee.**              |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *UN 3479 FUEL CELL CARTRIDGES | There were no proposals in    |
| Inf. | or FUEL CELL CARTRIDGES       | this paper. The U.S. is       |
| 34** | CONTAINED IN EQUIPMENT or     | pleased to see that the       |
|      | FUEL CELL CARTRIDGES PACKED   | timeline is such that a       |
|      | WITH EQUIPMENT,*              | reference to the finalized    |
|      |                               | 16111 standard within the     |
|      | *containing hydrogen in metal | 16^th^ Revised Edition can be |
|      | hydride (ISO)*                | considered by the UN SCOE.    |
|      |                               |                               |
|      | This paper reports on ISO's   |                               |
|      | progress in developing        |                               |
|      | ISO/DIS 16111 Transportable   |                               |
|      | gas storage devices ---       |                               |
|      | Hydrogen absorbed in          |                               |
|      | reversible metal hydrides.    |                               |
|      | ISO notes that their timeline |                               |
|      | is such that they expect a    |                               |
|      | finalized 16111 standard to   |                               |
|      | be published in October 2008, |                               |
|      | in time for referencing       |                               |
|      | within the 16^th^ Revised     |                               |
|      | Edition of the UN Model       |                               |
|      | Regulations.                  |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Substances having explosive  | There were no proposals in    |
| Inf. | properties - Comments to      | this paper. The U.S. shares   |
| 35** | ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2007/6        | ICCA's concerns and is not    |
|      | (ICCA)*                       | convinced changes to the      |
|      |                               | explosives classification     |
|      | This paper expresses concern  | criteria in the GHS are       |
|      | over possible changes to the  | necessary. However we plan to |
|      | GHS to take into account      | further discuss this issue    |
|      | non-transport classification  | within the TDG Explosives     |
|      | criteria for explosives.      | working group to seek a final |
|      |                               | resolution to this issue.     |
|      |                               |                               |
|      |                               | **Results: This issue will be |
|      |                               | discussed at the July session |
|      |                               | of the UNSCOE.**              |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Modifications to the time/   | There were no proposals in    |
| Inf. | pressure test for defining    | this paper.                   |
| 36** | flash powders (UK)*           |                               |
|      |                               | **Results: This issue will be |
|      | During the 31st Sub-Committee | discussed at the July session |
|      | on the Transport of Dangerous | of the UNSCOE.**              |
|      | Goods, the UK informed the    |                               |
|      | Sub-Committee that a report   |                               |
|      | would be prepared detailing   |                               |
|      | the research completed on the |                               |
|      | modifications to the          |                               |
|      | Time/Pressure test for        |                               |
|      | defining flash powders. This  |                               |
|      | paper gives details of the    |                               |
|      | results of this research.     |                               |
|      | Comments are requested from   |                               |
|      | members of the UN SCOE.       |                               |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **   | *Transition Period for New    | The U.S. supported this       |
| Inf. | Watt-Hour Marking Required on | proposal. We believe a        |
| 41** | Lithium ion Batteries (PRBA)* | transition period for         |
|      |                               | existing batteries is         |
|      | In this paper PRBA proposes a | warranted.                    |
|      | grandfather provision for     |                               |
|      | batteries to be marked with   | **Result: A revised           |
|      | the watt-hour rating as       | transition period was adopted |
|      | required by the amended SP    | allowing transport of         |
|      | 188 agreed to for the 15^th^  | batteries not meeting the new |
|      | Revised Edition.              | marking requirement until     |
|      |                               | January 1, 2011.**            |
+------+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+

Note 1 - Comments on 2007/47

-   Existing 5.5.1 appears to have been inadvertently deleted and should
    be moved or reinserted.

-   Proposed 5.5.1.1 should be amended as follows for clarity:

5.5.1.1 Fumigated cargo transport units and cargo transport units
containing packaged dry ice as a refrigerant (or other expendable
refrigerant used for the cooling process such as liquid nitrogen) shall
comply with the provisions of this chapter. No other provisions of these
Regulations shall apply. **[If the fumigated unit contains other
materials classified as dangerous goods, the provisions of these
Regulations applicable to those materials shall apply]{.underline}**.