DG Advisor, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE of Transportation Washington. DC 20590 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration AUG 20 2007 Mr. Robert J. Ten Eyck Director, Technical Services Ref. No. 07-0029 TEN-E Packaging Services, Inc. 1666 County Road 74 Newport, MN 55055 Dear Mr. Ten Eyck: This responds to your letter dated January 30, 2007, requesting an interpretation of what constitutes a non-bulk packaging design change under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask for reconsideration of a previous interpretation issued by this office (06-0129) that states "Changing the size (e.g., width) of the tape from that specified in the packaging test report and closure notification constitutes a change in design." It is your opinion that a change to a wider tape of the same specification as that originally certified would not detract from the packaging's performance either under the UN performance tests or conditions normally incident to We agree it is possible that a wider tape applied to a package may create a more "robust" vhen tested or transported. Additionally, a strict interpretation of the HMR does no package; however, it does not conclusively demonstrate how the package will perform annotate the test report and customer notification to read "identical specification tape, provide for regulatory relief under such a scenario. One solution you may consider is to minimum width 2 inches" if you can conclusively ascertain that using wider tape will not impair the performance of the package as the design was originally tested. This recordkeeping solution would not constitute a different package design type provided a minimum width or a range of widths of identical specification tape was applied by the package designs. package assembler. This analogy could also be applied retroactively to previously tested Because our previous response (06-129) offered a similar solution to this issue, we consider our previously issued response to be valid and with merit. assistance. I trust this adequately responds to your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further Sincerely, Susan Gorsky Regulations Officer e of Hazardous Materials Standards 178.601 070029#

Page 2Stevens TENOE 3178.601 SETTING THE STAMORRO Testing 07-0029 January 30, 2007 John A. Gale U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Hazardous Materials Standards PHH-10 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Ref. No.: 06-0129 Dear John: TEN-E Packaging Services is writing to request a reconsideration concerning the interpreted design change when a shipper substitutes a wider tape of the same material specification to that which was "wider" variation of tape due to different box sealing equipment being employed at its various originally certified under UN combination package testing. A shipper may have reason to substitute a production operations. A change to a wider tape of the same specification as that originally UN certified would not, in TEN-E's opinion, detract from the packaging's performance either under the this tape substitution places an unnecessary burden on industry and it is for this reason that we ask UN performance tests or conditions normally incident to transportation. Requiring a re-certification of the agency to consider amending the above clarification. Sincerely, Ruber. Panti TEN-E. Packaging Services, Inc. Director, Technical Services 1666 County Road 74 TEN-E Packaging Services, Inc. Newport, MN 55055 Fax: 651-459-1430 Phone: 651-459-0671 Web: www.ten-e.com Email: info@ten-e.com UNITED STATES - MN#