REGISTRATION and FINES and FAQs, OH MY!
February and March contain some interesting items potentially impacting the Canadian TDG landscape…
Transport Canada, through a consultation notice published in late February, has solicited input from stakeholders on a plan to require those who handle/offer for transport, transport or import dangerous goods to register with Transport Canada.
The premise is that, “… public safety depends” on Transport Canada knowing who is transporting DG, including where, when, and how much. The main thrust of this proposal seems to be for targeting enforcement and consultation activities.
The proposal as currently presented does not appear to distinguish among the size, frequency, or nature of DG involved; and will require period re-registration with submission of data to the “Client Information Database” (CID).
There’s nothing in the posted information to indicate whether there will be a cost to “clients” for registration, in addition to the record-keeping burden they will bear.
(For those familiar with the 49 CFR §107 (Subpart G) requirement, intended to subsidize government response activities, this TDG version does not serve the same purpose.)
The only exemptions currently contemplated, extend to those falling under a TDGR Part 1 “special case” exemption. This contrasts with 49 CFR’s registration which has exemptions based on load sizes and hazard types.
The TC proposal and comment provisions are found at:
While not directly cited in the Transport Canada TDG Act or regulations, Continue Reading…
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…
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…
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…
If you are feeling “Born to Be Wild” – Steppenwolf and looking to race down life’s highway on two wheels this summer, but short on time, or looking for an even better adventure across the pond, fly your bike and meet it there.
Wait! You can’t just show up at the airport and check in your motorcycle. Did you know that a motorcycle is considered to be a dangerous good? Under the IATA regulations, a motorcycle is classified as UN 3166, Vehicle flammable liquid powdered, hazard class 9; and therefore needs a shipper’s declaration form.
What does this mean to the average motorcycle enthusiast? It means that you need to seek the advice of a dangerous goods consultant, who specializes and can assist in providing instruction on the preparation of the motorcycle, and provide the proper signed shipper’s declaration.
According to Air Canada, some of the requirements at time of tender include:
- The fuel tank must be drained as far as practical; and fuel must NOT exceed ¼ of the tank capacity
- All batteries must be installed and securely fastened in the battery holder of the vehicle and be protected in such a manner as to prevent damage and short circuits
- Spare key, to be left in the ignition
- Alarm (theft-protection devices, installed radio communications equipment or navigational systems must be disabled
Air waybill number (booking number)
- Saddle bags may Continue Reading…
On June 1, 2016, Transport Canada issued an amendment to the “Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations” (TDG) under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. This amendment substantially revises the requirements for reporting spills of dangerous goods during transportation. It also addresses changes to air shipment of lithium ion batteries and makes various minor corrections and changes. The “Reporting Requirements and International Restrictions on Lithium Batteries Amendment” reflects concerns that the previous requirements for reporting spills, called “accidental releases,” was inefficient and didn’t allow the reporting parties to evaluate the risk to the public when deciding if a release had to be reported.
Changes to Reporting – Surface Transport
The section on reporting accidental releases, Part 8, called “Accidental Release and Imminent Accidental Release Report Requirements,” has been removed from the regulations and replaced with a new Part 8 titled simply “Reporting Requirements”.
First, the amendment removes the definitions for “accidental releases” and “anticipated accidental releases” and replaced them with definitions for “releases” and “anticipated releases”. This means that the reporting requirements will now cover intended releases as well as those that occur by accident.
Next, Transport Canada has adjusted the quantities of a release that would trigger reporting. For road, rail and water transport, these changes include:
- The limit is lowered to any amount for Class 1, Explosives; Class 2, Compressed Gases; Classes 3, 4, 5, 6.1, or 8, in Continue Reading…
On April 28, 2016, Transport Canada issued its latest Protective Direction. This Direction, number 36, will replace a previous one, Protective Direction 32, with more detailed instructions for rail carriers.
Protective Directions are rules that are not included in Canada’s Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDG). Instead, they are announced by Transport Canada, and are published on their website. Usually, these directives are used when Transport Canada believes it’s important to bring in a new rule quickly in order to protect the public. Since amending the regulations can take months or longer, Part 13 of TDG allows them to use this method to respond to important issues with appropriate speed.
Protective Direction 36 requires Canadian Class I rail carriers to either publish information on the carrier’s website, or provide information to designated Emergency Planning Officials (EPOs) of each jurisdiction through which the carrier transports dangerous goods. This information includes:
- Aggregate information on the nature and volume of dangerous goods that the rail carrier transported by railway car through the last calendar year (broken down by quarter);
- The number of unit trains loaded with dangerous goods operated in the jurisdiction in the last year (again, broken down by quarter); and
- The percentage of railway cars carrying dangerous goods that were operated by the rail carrier through the jurisdiction in the last calendar year.
Rail carriers transporting dangerous goods by railway Continue Reading…
A public notice has been posted by Transport Canada. The info is below:
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Directorate will begin work on updating the Transport Canada Standard TP14877, “Containers for Transport of Dangerous Goods by Rail”, December 2013. The standard covers large means of containment used in the handling, offering for transport and transporting of dangerous goods by rail. The update will focus on incorporating recent regulatory changes and proposals that have been consulted with the TP14877 Consultative Committee. The TP14877 Consultative Committee is comprised of various key stakeholders with extensive knowledge and expertise in regards to various aspects associated to the transportation of dangerous goods by rail.
Read the full notice »
Hot on the heels of the Feb. 2 Transport Canada proposed amendment (“Harmonization Updates”) posting, there was another (Feb. 9) proposal for consultation to clarify the intent of Part 11 regarding marine/ferry shipments.
A major result, if the proposal is adopted, will remove the confusion around when the IMDG Code is mandatory for vessel (updated terminology to replace the noun “ship”) shipments of dangerous goods. This issue has been subject to conflicting interpretations from time-to-time; not just among consignors, but also within the transport and enforcement communities.
This difficulty in making a clear interpretation stemmed from the difference in the intent of the term “Home Trade Voyage” in an obsolete version of the Canada Shipping Act which was quoted (perhaps out of context) in Part 11 of the TDGR.
A literal reading implied that essentially all “salt water” voyages could be considered Class I home trade voyages; requiring use of the IMDG Code.
As proposed, shipments by ferry to, for example Newfoundland or Vancouver Island, will likely clearly be under the provisions of the TDGR, not the IMDG Code. This will be of benefit, particularly to shippers of limited quantity/consumer commodity items which should no longer require a formal dangerous goods document or other considerations unique to the IMDG Code.
Short-Run Ferry qualification criteria may also be expanded to 5 km voyages; and restrictions on fuel transport on passenger ferries may Continue Reading…
…or “Preliminary consultation on International Harmonization Updates to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations”:
Transport Canada, after a busy 2014/2015, has begun a public consultation on proposed amendments aimed at improving the harmonization between the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) and International/US regulations. The proposed amendments will also update referenced standards on classification, packaging, etc.
TDGR Part 8 Reporting requirements will include the ICAO-based requirement for the Air Operator to notify CANUTEC if DG have been discovered to have been carried in non-compliance without proper notification to the pilot-in-command.
A key feature of the proposal is the move towards citing versions of safety standard/requirement documents in Part 1 “as amended from time to time” rather than referring to a specific issue date or revision. This will simplify things for international trade and reduce potential confusion over which edition must be followed.
In keeping with objectives established in the 2012 Canada-US Regulatory Cooperation Council action plan:
the proposal seeks to consider allowing the provisions of Canadian Equivalency Certificates (TDGR Part 14)/US Special Permits to be mutually acceptable between the two countries.
While recognizing the potential beneficial aspects of the change for industry stakeholders; there is concern on other potential impacts, such as for the enforcement community.
The proposal also includes provision for authorizing the interchangeable use of gas cylinders and aerosols (TDGR Part 5).
As part of the proposal to Continue Reading…