Transport Canada’s Standard TP14850, “Small Containers for Transport of Dangerous Goods, Classes 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8, and 9”
Transport Canada is well into the process of producing the 3rd Edition of TP14850. The current 2nd Edition (2010) has been in effect since it replaced the CGSB 43.150-97 standard in 2014. Changes to TP14850 are required to reflect current harmonization with the UN Recommendations, changes in the TDG regulations, improvements to ensure the integrity of standardized packaging, addition/clarification of Part 14 special cases, and simplify use of the standard.
Comments are welcomed until May 31, 2017.
An initial draft update was prepared for discussion in January 2016 and a committee of 30-40 stakeholders has been reviewing, discussing and proposing modifications between the initial draft and the May 2017 draft version of the 3rd Edition (by way of disclosure, the author of this Blog is one of the stakeholder representatives). The May 2017 draft follows these reviews and feedback from an initial 2016 public consultation.
Manufacturer’s Periodic Re-Test Obligation
A new requirement (Clause 7.1.7) requires the registered manufacturer to periodically, at least every 5 years, repeat performance tests on a representative sample. Typically, registration certificates are issued for 5 year periods.
One thing to note is that although TP14850 as currently written/proposed does not define “manufacturer” with respect to obligations under the standard, the application form for registration clarifies, in section 4 and Continue Reading…
A key difference that distributors of imported hazardous products are struggling with is the treatment of products that require re-labelling with Canadian-compliant labels.
WHMIS 1988 and WHMIS 2015 both require a “supplier” (seller) to ensure that products have compliant labels- i.e. as outlined in the respective “controlled” or “hazardous” products regulations. Manufacturers and Distributors, as suppliers are usually comfortable in complying when they are preparing/consolidating shipments of products initially labelled in compliance with the Canadian regulations for GHS-based required wording, pictograms, etc.
However, when receiving imports other mandatory features such as bilingual English/French text, a Canadian Supplier name/address and “non-GHS” classifications may not always be present.
Do It Here or Do It There?
Ideally the foreign supplier will have the instruction and capability to address Canadian label requirements when fulfilling the order from a Canadian customer- be it the end user or a distributor.
If the foreign supplier is unable to reliably provide WHMIS-compliant labels, the Canadian importer may supply the labels for application before shipment.
Practically this may not always be possible depending on the sophistication of the foreign supplier, the volume ordered or the uniqueness of the product. The Canadian distributor may bring non-compliant product to their facility/agent and re-label the product before delivery to the final customer who will have employees handling and/or using the product.
The above options are possible under both the WHMIS 1988 and WHMIS 2015 Continue Reading…
An Easter Parade!
(Marine Amendment-Part 11, Rail Car Standard TP14877 Revision, ERAP- Part 7 Consultation)
Transport Canada is heading into what seems to be an ambitious spring/summer period with a variety of projects related to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) regulations. The latest notices are open for comment until the end of April and cover aspects of Parts 5, 7 and 11 (with implications for other parts) of the TDG regulations (TDGR).
SHIP- NO!- “VESSEL” AHOY! – MARINE PROVISIONS
Significant changes are proposed to TDGR Part 11 and Part 1 Special Cases to reflect the current Canada Shipping Act (CSA) and associated regulations, as well as commercial considerations. These affect definitions, terminology and the ability to efficiently transport fuels or medical/diving gases on passenger vessels.
In addition to the changes highlighted in the notice, there are several other noteworthy changes in the proposal.
“Near coastal” versus “Home-Trade” Voyages
The current Part 11 has been the subject of confusion regarding what constitutes the use of the IMDG Code versus the TDGR, particularly with voyages between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Retailers in particular have had difficulty in determining when consumer commodities can continue on to NL under TDGR Special Case 1.17. The wording in the current TDGR implies that the voyage would fall under a Home-Trade Voyage Class 1 from the Home-Trade Voyage Regulations. At certain times, the Marine Safety branch of Transport Canada Continue Reading…
Cross-Docking is Reshipping
On February 8 Transport Canada issued an addition to FAQ regarding the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) Part 9, s. 9.4. This section deals with the re-shipping of dangerous goods (DG) received by road from the US when safety marks differ from those specified in the TDGR. In general, (more on this later**), TDGR 9.1 allows receipt of US shipments to first destination with the safety marks that were legally applied under 49 CFR at the US shipping point.
The FAQ defines “cross-docking” as “the process of transferring dangerous goods from one vehicle to another before reaching their final destination”. Changing drivers or tractor units does not trigger the term. When DG are cross-docked, Transport Canada considers this to be “re-shipping” and the provisions of TDGR 9.4 apply (note: although the FAQ refers to “reshipping” in quotes, the term is not specifically defined in the TDGR other than as described by s. 9.4).
Basically, the requirements in s. 9.4 are to remove placards which do not meet TDGR requirements and replace them with TDGR-compliant versions. Examples of these could be US “DANGEROUS” placards; or those with the midline adjusted (e.g. Class 7, 8, 9); or worded and “combustible” placards.
In addition, if means of containment (soon to become “packaging” we hope!) have labels or other safety marks differing from TDGR requirements, then the shipping paper must Continue Reading…
The November 26th Canada Gazette I provides an early “gift” to the regulated community which may help relieve boredom over the holiday season.
Harmonization Transportation Style
Although the DG world (unlike WHMIS/OSHA) has been fairly well harmonized under the UN Recommendations for some years now, there have been issues from time to time with; the editions standards referenced in the TDG regulations (TDGR); differences between DOT/TDG requirements for pressure receptacles; and confusion in the status of cross-border shipments when special permits (DOT) or equivalency certificates (TDG) are applied to consignments (for brevity, we’ll refer to these both under the generic term “permit for equivalent level of safety”- PELS).
An example of the former is the Table of Safety Standards in TDGR 1.3. The recognized edition of the UN Recommendations is the 17th Ed. (2011)- despite the fact that we’re currently looking at the 19th Ed. (2015) and are on the verge of the 20th (2017). This can lead to confusion since the modal regulations are usually consistent with the current edition of UN Recommendations.
To help resolve this issue, and presumably to reduce the amount of catch-up amending necessary, Transport Canada proposes to expand the listing of “ambulatory references” – refer to the latest edition (i.e. “as amended from time to time” rather than a specific date)- for equivalency of other regulations and some selected technical standards.
Canada-US Regulatory Cooperation
Issues Continue Reading…
FedEx Changes Style & Substance
The 2017 IATA DGR Limitations (Section 2) has a bit of a curve ball thrown to those who have become familiar with the common FedEx (FX) limitations found throughout the Section 5 packing instructions (PI).
In addition to the substantive changes in lithium battery shipment acceptance, the complete FX series has been re-arranged. The restrictions in the previous (57th) edition are still there but have been largely consolidated as sub-items; often within a different FX number. The change results in going from 18 FX numbers, 17 of which were active (FX-08 was “Not used”) to essentially the same topics covered in a list of 9 active FX numbers (FX-01 through FX-08 & FX-18)- i.e. FX-09 through FX-17 are currently not in use.
A quick reference guide for those who had memorised the common FedEx exemptions appears below:
FedEx-Changes in IATA DGR Limitations
||57th Ed 2016
||58th Ed 2017
||FX-01 (a), (b)
|Class 6.1, PIH, Class 2 with sub.
||FX-02 (a), (b)
|Class 7…+ excepted pkg
||FX-03 (a)- (d) + (e)
||FX-05 (a) – (d)
|Class 6.2, WHO RG4
|Pkg must accommodate labels
|Shipper’s Dec, 3 copies…
|Acetylene; DiMeDiClsilane; Zr suspension
|Sp A2, A183 not recognised
|IE/IEF require “V-pkg”
|Software for ShDec
Note: Although there are several “FX-” limitations relating to, for example, marking and documentation; the majority of limitations are referenced in the PI. Continue Reading…
A draft version of the 3rd Edition of Transport Canada’s TP14850- Small Containers for Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Classes 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8 & 9” is available for public review and comments will be considered when received by October 13.
Transport Canada began planning the review in Q3 2015 and announced the formation of a Technical Committee in a public notice in early 2016.
The Committee was formed in April; consisting of participants representing interests from production, marketing, distribution, sales, use and/or regulation of dangerous goods packaging. The Committee met initially by phone and, following the review of a preliminary draft, followed up with a meeting in Ottawa in May to provide input for the aforementioned first draft.
The intent of the 3rd Edition is to incorporate updates from the 19th (2015) Edition of the UN Recommendations and possibly prepare for inclusion of aspects of the 20th Edition expected in 2017.
Some features of the first draft, in addition to the harmonization with the 2015 model UN Recommendations, include:
- clarification of the requirements for packaging distributors to provide instructions on assembling and closing packages;
- removal of some redundant provisions that are already in the regulations;
- clarification of special cases and expanding some Substance Specific Provisions (SSP) removing the need for certain Equivalency Certificates (e.g. UN3268);
- locating SSP within the packing instruction (PI) applicable to the UN number, similar to the UN Recommendations & Continue Reading…
Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Recall is a Counterpoint to IATA Joint Petition
The announcement of a recall of Samsung Galaxy Note 7 phones due to a possible defect in the assembly of the batteries (remember that batteries are a collection of “cells”) followed a bit of online chatter on discussion groups a week or so ago. IATA, in concert with battery manufacturers, users, and shippers, sent a letter to various governments urging increased enforcement of the enhanced regulations in effect since April 1, 2016 (see previous Blogs for summaries of changes).
The gist of the letter is that the majority of problems in transport are caused by the “wilful disregard of the regulations by rogue manufacturers and shippers” that is leading to “overwhelming” pressure on airlines to stop carrying lithium batteries altogether. The industry position is that the development of “increasingly draconian regulation” will not significantly improve safety but will disadvantage the majority of law-abiding parties. The letter goes on to urge increased cooperative government enforcement and imposition of fines and, “where appropriate” incarceration as the solution to the issue.
The letter includes alleviation of “consumer safety issues” as a point in support of the petition, which no doubt is valid, but may not be as significant as “non-wilful” defects, carelessness, or ignorance of the regulations.
The preliminary report on the Galaxy Note 7 recall is available from “AppleInsider” Continue Reading…
Saskatchewan Joins the Fold- WHMIS 2015 Implementation Starts August 17
The “Land of Living Skies” (SK) has become the 6th province to finalize regulatory amendments to implement WHMIS 2015 in workplaces under their jurisdiction.
REG 6, officially named “The Occupational Health and Safety (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System) Regulations, takes effect August 17, 2016 –as published in the June 17 Saskatchewan Gazette.
The regulation supplements The Saskatchewan Employment Act WHMIS requirements (Part III, DIVISON 7 of Statute S-15.1). As long as employers comply with the WHMIS 1988 requirements during the transition period, full compliance with WHMIS 2015 labelling/SDS at a worksite does not become mandatory until December 1, 2018.
The requirements mirror those in the model regulation which have been included to varying degrees in the FPT (federal/provincial/territorial) workplace regulations issued to date.
As with most OHS (occupational health & safety) regulations, training must be provided for hazards in the workplace- so employers receiving WHMIS 2015 labeled products/SDS will be expected to have trained workers in using the new system before they are able to be introduced to a worksite or place of employment (the defined terms for what other FPT refer to as a “workplace”).
Oh – “Land of Living Skies”?:
Saskatchewan is called the Land of Living Skies for a reason »
But if you visit, beware of Captain Tractor:
UPDATE – The June 29 Canada Gazette II contains the Federal Canada Labour Code adoption of WHMIS 2015 into the various CLC OHS Regulations (SOR 2016/141).
The amendments are effective immediately with an employer operating transition period until Nov. 30, 2018 – i.e. WHMIS 1988 or WHMIS 2015 may be used for products in/entering the workplace.
WHMIS 1988 may be used for products already present in the workplace at Dec. 1, 2018 until May 31, 2019.
Details can be found:
Watch our Blog site for more information
Formal Transition to WHMIS 2015
July 1st Ontario begins the formal transition to WHMIS 2015- Ontario Gazette June 25, 2016 –O.Reg. 168/16 amends O. Reg. 860
Ontario employers must prepare to convert their workplace programs to WHMIS 2015 during the period from July 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. Stock under WHMIS 1988 already in the workplace may continue to be used until Nov. 30, 2018. Product received under WHMIS 1988 must comply with supplier labeling requirements (e.g. hatched borders/symbols) and MSDS requirements (e.g. 3 year “expiry” date) under the WHMIS 1988 (CPR) regulations.
Introducing new products under WHMIS 2015 will require training workers in WHMIS 2015 before they are used.
This information is referenced in the amended O. Reg. 860 s. 25.1 “Transition”; and the enforcement policy as last reviewed December 2015:
ON OHS ACT
As before, the majority of details are contained in the amended O. Reg. Continue Reading…