At the start of each new year lots of things are said about changes to make in order for the next year to be better. Many make resolutions about losing weight or getting healthy. Others decide to be nicer to people, spend more time with family or volunteer. It doesn’t mean the previous year was bad, but things can always get better. Let’s look at this from a regulatory compliance point of view, and see if things will be better in 2019.
Changes to Regulations:
Starting January 1, 2019 there is a new version of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations. You must now be using the 60th edition. Luckily, IATA does a great job of giving advanced notice about what is changing late in 2018 so people can start to prepare before the new version takes effect. You can see the list of “significant” changes here. The IMDG Code was also updated for 2019. The new version is the 39-18 Amendment. You are allowed to use the 39-18 starting in January 2019, but the older 38-16 version is still viable for the rest of this year. Again, a summary of the changes for that regulation was published as well. You can find them here. The US ground regulations of 49 CFR had a few amendments throughout 2018, and there is a large one looming for 2019. To stay up-to-date Continue Reading…
Have you ever been in a situation where you understand “it” clearly, but the person you are explaining “it” to just does not get it? Frustrating, eh! Well I recently had this fun experience.
We did a repackaging job for one of our clients a couple of weeks ago. He was shipping a switch, which had a very small amount of mercury inside it. He told us maybe 0.5 kg of mercury – if that – and this shipment needs to go via air transport. Since he isn’t certified for air transport, he needed our services.
We classified the switch as UN3506, Mercury contained in manufactured articles. We packaged the shipment according to packing instruction 869, and as per special provision A191 since the article contained less than 5 kg of mercury. We did not add the subsidiary hazard label (class 6.1), and included “A191” in the authorization column of the shipper’s declaration.
We sent out the package. This was on Friday.
On Monday we got the package back. If there is something to note about me it is that I don’t take rejected packages lightly. It hits close to heart that I made a mistake. Took a look at the checklist, and it was rejected because the carrier’s DG Agent took the weight on the shipper’s declaration as the net weight of the mercury inside the package, and claimed Continue Reading…
Welcome to the ever-changing world of transporting lithium batteries. It feels like just yesterday we were discussing the introduction of the new Class 9 hazard label dedicated to just batteries and the new handling “mark”. Would you believe that started at the end of 2016? In an attempt to clarify things, here is the first of several blogs dedicated to one of the new versions of a transport regulation. The focus will be what changed in regards to lithium batteries for that mode. My first choice, only because it is my favorite regulation, is the 60th edition of the International Air Transport Association or IATA as many of us know it. By the way, ICC will be hosting a training on lithium batteries on January 24th and 25th. Call us today to get registered today.
Listed below are the specific sections, paragraphs, packing instructions and the like that had changes for lithium cells and batteries. If you aren’t overly familiar with shipping batteries, what is below can be a bit overwhelming. You can access our “cheat sheet” for required labels by ground, ocean, and air.
60th Edition Changes for Batteries:
New classification criteria – As part of 18.104.22.168.1 there are 2 new paragraphs around the classification of lithium batteries. One paragraph talks about “hybrid” batteries, which are those that contain both ion and metal while the other is about Continue Reading…
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a final rule on October 18th. As you know, the only way to amend or change Title 49 for Transportation in the Code of Federal Regulations is through a rule making process. This particular docket number is HM–259. Its goal is to “align the U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations with current international standards for the air transportation of hazardous materials”. It has an effective date of October 18, 2018. While the published rule is 23 pages long, I have attempted to hit the highlights here. If you wish to read the entire final rule with the discussion on comments received, you can go to https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations-fr/rulemaking/2018-22114.
Highlights of HM-259
172.101 – Removal of A3 and A6 from Column 7 for multiple entries in the HMT. Provision A3 will be removed from all Packing Group I entries. Provision A6 will be removed from all liquid entries to which it is assigned.
172.102 – A3 revised and now reads as follows: “For combination packagings, if glass inner packagings (including ampoules) are used, they must be packed with absorbent material in tightly closed rigid and leakproof receptacles before packing in outer packagings.” There is no longer a mention of using “tightly closed metal receptacles”.
175.10(a)(18)(i) – Revised portable electronic devices by passengers and crew. This section has been expanded to include portable medical electronic devices with lithium metal Continue Reading…
In keeping with the standard practice of alerting users to modifications in the new edition of the Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) for air transport, the list of Significant Changes and Amendments to the 60th Edition (2019) were released several months ago, and are incorporated into the recently published copies of the DGR.
Typically changes in the State and Operator Variations, in s. 2.8, are not outlined in specific detail in the Significant Changes document, but are referenced as a general reminder. This contrasts with amendments issued between publications which illustrate the actual details of changes.
Which leads us to FX-02…
FX-02 DROPS “V” RATED PACKAGING
A rather significant operator variation in s. 2.8.4 of the IATA DGR was the common application of FX-02 (f) to liquids in specified classes. This limitation, which existed as FX-17 prior to the 57th Ed., required shippers to use the heavy duty UN-standard “V-Pack” (“variation” commonly noted by UN code 4GV) package even though it wasn’t mandated by the Packing Instruction (PI) or other provisions of the DGR.
The limitation was invoked when FedEx customers were choosing to ship under the “International Economy” or “International Freight Economy” designations. Not only was it required in place of PI-required UN standardized Continue Reading…
Almost always the authorization column in the shipper’s declaration is left blank, but when you need to add something in there, you must add it in there. Section 22.214.171.124.4 of the IATA Regulations provides when and what to add when required. Now sometimes we forget to read the “notes” in the Regulations.
Here’s my story
A customer called in first thing Monday morning to get help on shipping an engine. It was an urgent shipment, and he had to get it out ASAP. I said, “No problem. We can help.” It’s what we do. It was going via air, and since it was a domestic shipment he can drop the shipment off to the airline directly for it to leave later that day.
Packaging for an engine
Engines vary in size, clearly. I asked our customer if his engine was packaged, and he said no, but it was strapped on a wooden pallet with 2×4 lumber on corners of the pallet for support. So, I asked him to email me a picture to understand what he meant by that. The picture showed the engine was visible, and the corners with the lumber in upright position did not affect the identification of the engine. I told our customer that all he needed was the shipper’s declaration. We created the declaration, he picked up the colored copies from our office and dropped Continue Reading…
Welcome back to the Regulatory Helpdesk where we answer your dangerous goods & hazmat questions. We’re here to help you become independent with – and understand the whys and hows of – the regulations.
Placarding Bulk Truckloads
Q. My truck has 4000kgs of drums of Class 3 UN1993 in it. Truck has Class 3 UN1993 placard on it . We pick up 1 empty tote (IBC) which is Class 3 UN1993 also. Can we keep the same placard on the truck or do we need to add Class 3 only? Same with empty drums. We just need to add primary CLASS card? All transported via ground within Canada.
A.Well the drums don’t need UN numbered placards since drums are considered small means of containment. A plain class 3 placard will do to represent the drums. It used to be in the Regulations that over 4000kg from one shipper could display UN numbered placard but it was repealed recently. Totes, even empty with residue, requires UN numbered placards for liquids in direct contact with the means of containment. You don’t need to add plain class 3 placard for the drums as both the drum and tote content is hazard class 3. So technically the truck displayed the correct placard (UN1993). If the drums were empty and less than 500kg gross mass then no placard will be required; however, if you Continue Reading…
For the most part, the dangerous goods world is one of the few industries that still relies heavily on using paper documentations, specifically when it comes to shipping declarations. In one of my previous blogs, we talked about DG AutoCheck which is simply a system IATA unveiled that digitally checks the compliance of a shipper’s declarations by simply uploading or scanning the paperwork into the system. As a part of IATA’s e-freight initiative, the digital process is being taken one step further with the implementation the INFr8 (eDGD) digital system.
What is INFr8 (eDGD)?
Unlike DG Auto Check which is intended for use by airlines, ground handlers, and freight forwarders, this digital platform is intended to include shippers as well to digitally create and send electronic Dangerous Goods Declarations (eDGD) through the entire air cargo supply chain. The dangerous goods process has traditionally been paper-based due to the lack of digital standards. The eDGD validation module ensures that the information on the shipper’s declaration is correct against IATA regulations and the specific airline’s requirements as well. Currently, airlines can only begin checking the documentation after handover. Thanks to the new electronic system, errors in accompanying documentation can be detected and ironed out before the airline even receives the shipment. This means documentation errors can be detected and eliminated at an early stage, reducing Continue Reading…
In keeping with past practice, IATA (International Air Transport Association) has released the summary of significant changes to the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) that will appear in the upcoming 60th Edition effective in January 2019.
This useful summary appears in the “Introduction” section of the IATA DGR and allows users to check for items that may affect their procedures that have changed since the previous edition. There are a variety of changes highlighted that comprise revisions to existing provisions, addition of new items and deletions. While some changes are based on updates to the United Nations Recommendations for model regulations (UN Model), typically adopted in other modal regulations, some are specific to the IATA DGR.
There are some editorial changes that relate to the clarification of terminology regarding “risk” versus “hazard”. This mainly affects the designation of subsidiary classifications which will now be referred to as “subsidiary hazards”. This is more logical and conforms to protocols in safety and considers “hazard” as the danger inherent to a substance; compared to “risk” as an indication of the possibility/probability of harm from the danger.
Other UN Model-based changes include adding UN numbers, qualifying ammonium nitrate fertilizer classification, adding additional provisions for classification/packaging group assignment for corrosives and expansion of classification of articles Continue Reading…
If you have seen the news, recently a cellphone aboard an airplane caught fire before take-off, leading to an evacuation (FOX News).
When I first saw this story, I was grateful that this event took place before the airplane took off and they were able to get everyone off of the airplane safely. But a few questions arose, what if it happened in the air, and what if it happened to a laptop computer in cargo? Well, regulators had previously believed that a flame-retardant gas required in airliner cargo holds would be able to suppress any type of single lithium battery fire. This gas, called halon is a liquefied, compressed gas that can stop the spread of fire by chemically disrupting its combustion.
However, recent tests conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration found the halon gas suppression systems can’t put out a battery fire once it combines with other highly flammable material, such as the gas in an aerosol can or cosmetics. The potential dangerous combination can cause flames to spread, overwhelming the fire suppression systems in airplane cargo holds, meaning it is possible under the right circumstances that a single laptop battery could catch fire and cause an airliner to crash. The possibility is such a concern that the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the biggest pilot union in North America, is now thinking Continue Reading…