Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations

Statutory Authority

Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992

Sponsoring Department

Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

Clear Language

The clear language version of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDG Regulations) replaces the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations that came into force in July 1985 and that have been subsequently amended 23 times.

A complete review and re-write of the TDG Regulations started before the February 1992 Budget directive to all federal government departments to review existing regulations.

The primary purpose of the review was to examine policy. Eventually, this review evolved into using clear language principles to simplify requirements and to organize the presentation of those requirements. Clear language, or plain language, is a method of writing and organizing a document to make the contents understandable and inviting to read.

Transport Canada, through the Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate (the Directorate), has been consulting with interested stakeholders on the content, style, format and presentation of the clear language TDG Regulations since the first draft was distributed for informal comment in December 1995.

As a result of being re-written in clear language, the TDG Regulations look different from the way in which regulations are normally presented for publication in the Canada Gazette. The Department of Justice supports this initiative and has decided to permit this new presentation as a pilot project. There are pilot projects in other countries which the Department of Justice has been monitoring. However, little study has been done to date in Canada on how federal regulations could be improved to make them more accessible and readable by those who are to be governed by them. The Department of Justice welcomes the TDG initiative as a means to obtain feedback on the various features used in the TDG Regulations. It intends to monitor reader response to the new presentation features.

Background

The original purpose of the re-write of the TDG Regulations in clear language was to remove the complexity of the language and simplify the structure of the regulatory text. It was hoped that a person whose activities were already in compliance with the current Regulations would not have to change anything in their operations to continue to be in compliance with the clear language Regulations.

This objective had to bow to many considerations including

The TDG Act, 1992, is different from the original Act passed in 1980. The major change is that the TDG Act, 1992, was enacted in relation to all matters that are within the legislative authority of Parliament. In addition, the wording of the TDG Act, 1992, closes a number of loopholes. For example, the 1980 Act did not apply to means of containment unless they actually contained dangerous goods. The TDG Act, 1992, applies to the manufacturing, maintenance, selection and use of means of containment intended to be used for the transportation of dangerous goods.

The United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods prepares recommendations published in the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Canada participates very actively in the preparation of these Recommendations. The International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) published by the International Maritime Organization and used for international consignments of dangerous goods by sea is based on the UN Recommendations as are the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO Technical Instructions). Canada, the United States and many other countries base regulations for transporting dangerous goods on the UN Recommendations.

Today, dangerous goods are often transported by more than one mode of transport. The current Regulations treat each mode independently which often makes it difficult to determine how to properly prepare dangerous goods for transport, for example, by truck to a train then by train to a ship and then by ship to destination. Each mode has its own set of rules. Fortunately, these rules, often based on international modal requirements, have been converging due to harmonization efforts and the opportunity now exists in the clear language Regulations to allow a consignor to more easily prepare dangerous goods for multi-modal transportation.

The United States is Canada's largest trading partner. Although there are still some differences in requirements, both countries base their regulations on the UN Recommendations. Furthermore, the clear language Regulations recognize that consignments of dangerous goods transported from the United States in compliance with the U.S. regulations Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States (49 CFR) are safe for transport in Canada. The U.S. regulations include reciprocal recognition for Canadian consignments that are in compliance with the TDG Regulations.

Technology is evolving rapidly. The use of computers, of electronic records and of Intelligent Transportation Systems are not extensively recognized in the current Regulations although the TDG Act, 1992, does recognize technological possibilities. Also, the manner in which compliance with standards can be verified has improved and it is possible to augment the level at which the program can rely on performance requirements, thus leaving industry free to seek more efficient ways to comply and to provide for public safety. For example, the current Regulations specify how means of containment are to be manufactured, while the clear language Regulations indicate the performance tests to which means of containment must be subjected. The manufacturer is free to manufacture means of containment in a number of ways as long as the means of containment passes performance tests.

For all the reasons listed above, the promise of changing only the format without affecting the content could not be kept. Instead, where possible, the clear language Regulations offer equivalent safe ways to comply with requirements so that it is possible for a person whose activities are in compliance with the current Regulations to continue those activities in the same manner and still be in compliance with the clear language Regulations.

A summary of the clear language Regulations

The clear language Regulations are divided into 16 parts and 5 schedules. There are clear language features that are common to all the parts such as tables of content, italicized explanatory material and, at the beginning of each part, a list of defined terms used in the part.

PART 1

COMING INTO FORCE, REPEAL, INTERPRETATION, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND SPECIAL CASES

This part is divided into five sections.

The coming into force and repeal sections are administrative. The coming into force section provides for a six-month transition period.

The interpretation section has material that is intended to guide the reader and to make using the regulations easier. The section includes two tables that give the symbols for units of measure used in the regulations and the short form of safety standards and safety requirements cited in the regulations. Definitions of terms used in the regulations are also in this section. Definitions from the TDG Act, 1992, are repeated in this section. There are some new definitions that should be noted, particularly the definitions of “consignor”, “in transport”, “offer for transport” and “in standard”.

The general provisions section includes a provision that allows a consignor to delegate consignor duties and a transition provision for existing permits. Also included is a provision that allows dangerous goods that are not regulated in Canada but that are regulated in the United States to be transported from Canada to the United States in accordance with 49 CFR, the U.S. dangerous goods regulations.

The special cases section includes general exemptions to the regulations. Notable among these exemptions is the one for low threat consignments (LTC). The concept of a low threat consignment is not new. It is based on a similar concept in the UN Recommendations and is captured in the current Regulations in the exemptions for consumer commodities, limited quantities, retail sale, demonstration, equipment repair, analysis or testing and instruments or pieces of equipment. The LTC exemption is based on quantities and is tied to the index number shown in column 6 of Schedule 1 or 2 for a shipping name. The few requirements placed on LTCs are similar to what is required now for consumer commodities. The main difference is that accumulations of LTCs that exceed 500 kg and that are transported from one consignor to one destination must be accompanied by a document that includes the letters “LTC” and the classes of dangerous goods in the LTC.

PART 2

CLASSIFICATION

As in the rest of the clear language Regulations, the purpose of this part has not changed from the current Regulations. The part has been updated to align with the 10th edition of the UN Recommendations.

The part includes classification procedures for Marine Pollutants. As well, shipping names for Class 8, Corrosives, differentiate between organic and inorganic corrosive substances and between basic and acidic substances. For Class 9, Miscellaneous Products, Substances or Organisms, the leachate extraction test is required only for those substances that are intended for disposal. In addition, environmentally hazardous substances are listed in an appendix to this part and are included in Class 9 only if they are intended for disposal and are not included in any other class.

One of the major changes in this part is the regulation of substances that are liquids or solids and that are transported at elevated temperatures. There is one UN number for Class 3, Flammable Liquids, UN3256, and two UN numbers for Class 9, UN3257 for liquids and UN3258 for solids.

PART 3

SHIPPING DOCUMENT

The concept that a shipping document must contain basic information about dangerous goods and must accompany the dangerous goods during transport has not changed. The requirements have been simplified to facilitate understanding and compliance.

This part now includes sections that set out the responsibilities of a consignor and a carrier, sections on documentation required for transport by ship and a section devoted to a consist for transport by rail.

The use of electronic data interchange is encouraged in this part. A shipping document can be forwarded electronically from a consignor to a carrier and from a carrier to the next person to take possession of the dangerous goods when the parties involved agree. However, each person has to be able to produce a paper copy of the shipping document.

PART 4

DANGEROUS GOODS SAFETY MARKS

The reasons for requiring safety marks to be displayed during the transport of dangerous goods have not changed but there are some changes to the requirements that should be noted.

As in Part 2 and Part 3, there are sections in this part that set out the responsibilities of consignors and carriers regarding dangerous goods safety marks.

The requirement for labelling subsidiary classes has changed so that a label for the first subsidiary class shown for the dangerous goods in column 2 of Schedule 1 or 2 must be displayed but not for any other subsidiary class.

The requirement for some dangerous goods to have an emergency response assistance plan is taken into consideration in this part to determine the placards and UN numbers to be displayed on large means of containment. As well, placards are required to be retroreflective when they identify those dangerous goods that require an emergency response assistance plan.

PART 5

SAFETY STANDARDS AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS: MEANS OF CONTAINMENT

This part includes requirements for selecting and using a means of containment to contain dangerous goods.

The most important new feature in this part is the introduction of the concept of “in standard”. This is intended to ensure that a means of containment is in compliance with a standard when the marks certifying compliance are first displayed on it and that it continues to meet this level of safety until its next test. The current Regulations require only that a means of containment be in compliance with a standard at the time of testing and not between tests.

Another notable change from the current Regulations is the phasing in, as of January 1, 2003, of UN means of containment and the consequent phasing out of means of containment that are not standardized means of containment (a standardized means of containment is defined in the Act as a “... means of containment in relation to which a safety standard has been prescribed.”).

A means of containment that is not a standardized means of containment, i.e., it does not have a standard prescribed for it, may only be used if it is designed, constructed, filled, closed, secured and maintained so that under normal conditions of transport, including handling, there will be no accidental release of dangerous goods that could endanger public safety.

The following standards have been updated and the updated versions are cited in the clear language Regulations:

PART 6

TRAINING

Training in the current Regulations is in a part with registration and accident reporting requirements. In the clear language Regulations, training requirements are in Part 6 on their own.

Part 6 continues the requirement that a person who handles, offers for transport or transports dangerous goods be trained or work under the direct supervision of a person who is trained. The onus is still on the employer to determine whether or not an employee is adequately trained and there is still the proviso that a person needs to be trained only for the duties the person is expected to perform and only for the dangerous goods the person is expected to work with.

Part 6 includes clear statements as to the responsibilities of self-employed persons, a section on what constitutes adequate training for transporting dangerous goods by air and a section devoted to the validity of a certificate or license held by foreign carriers or crews.

The major change from the current Regulations is the additional information required on a training certificate.

PART 7

EMERGENCY RESPONSE ASSISTANCE PLAN

Like the training requirements, the requirements for an emergency response assistance plan are now in a part on their own.

This part expands on what is in the current Regulations by detailing the application and approval process for emergency response assistance plans.

The major differences between the current Regulations and the clear language Regulations are the additional requirement for a potential accident assessment and the increase in the number of dangerous goods that require an emergency response assistance plan. The requirement for a plan is tied to the index number shown in column 7 of Schedule 1 or 2 for a shipping name.

PART 8

ACCIDENTAL RELEASE AND IMMINENT ACCIDENTAL RELEASE REPORT REQUIREMENTS

This part generally follows the requirements in the current Regulations but there are some differences for air transport.

The major change is the introduction of imminent accidental release, which is newly defined in Part 1 and which is now included in the reporting scheme. In addition, the quantities in the table for immediate reporting have been changed from the current Regulations.

The reporting form for the 30-day follow-up report that is in the current Regulations has been dropped and the required information is now in narrative form.

PART 9

ROAD

Part 9 is the first of the four parts devoted to the modes: Part 10 is Rail, Part 11 is Marine and Part 12 is Air.

This part contains the reciprocity sections for transporting dangerous goods by road from the United States into or through Canada. The part also includes allowing the use of the ICAO Technical Instructions and the IMDG Code for transporting dangerous goods to or from an aircraft or a ship. As well, Part 9 contains a section for reshipping international consignments of dangerous goods in Canada. These sections are examples of harmonization efforts.

PART 10

RAIL

Part 10 mirrors Part 9 in that it contains the same reciprocity sections for transporting dangerous goods from the United States into or through Canada, the same sections for transporting dangerous goods to or from an aircraft or a ship and the same section for re-shipping international consignments of dangerous goods in Canada.

Part 10 also includes a section on locating or placing placarded railway vehicles in a train and a section on coupling railway vehicles.

PART 11

MARINE

This part requires compliance with the IMDG Code for international transport and compliance with the clear language Regulations for domestic transport.

Part 11, along with the other parts of the clear language Regulations, is intended to clarify for consignors and carriers the requirements that must be complied with before dangerous goods reach a ship. Regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act will deal with the requirements for segregation and stowage on a ship once the dangerous goods reach the ship.

PART 12

AIR

Part 12 is the last of the parts devoted to the modes and requires compliance with ICAO's Technical Instructions for international and domestic transport. The majority of the part is given to relaxing the requirements for domestic transport because the ICAO Technical Instructions are not intended for some of the northern and limited access operations that the Canadian reality demands. In addition, there are new exemptions added for medical aid, air ambulances and emergency response.

PART 13

PROTECTIVE DIRECTION

This part has been simplified but there are no major changes from the current Regulations.

PART 14

PERMIT FOR EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

This part was amended in 1995 and, among other editorial changes, the amendment removed the application forms for permits and aligned the text with the TDG Act, 1992, by deleting the notion of a permit for exception.

There is no obligation on any person to apply for a permit to handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods. However, if a person wants to conduct an activity in a way that is not consistent with the Act or its Regulations, that person must apply for a permit to do so under section 31 of the Act. The applicant for a permit may comply with the requirements in this part and must demonstrate that the activity to be authorized by the permit would provide a level of safety at least equivalent to compliance with the Act and its Regulations.

PART 15

COURT ORDER

This part is administrative in nature and there are no major changes from the current Regulations.

PART 16

INSPECTORS

Like Part 15, this part is administrative, however, the contents have been considerably simplified from the current Regulations. It now consists of the Certificate of Designation that is issued to an inspector and an Inspection Certificate that an inspector gives to a person who is in charge of anything that is closed or sealed that the inspector opens to inspect or from which the inspector takes a sample.

SCHEDULE 1

Schedule 1 lists the elements of classification of Class 1, Explosives, and includes the low threat consignment and emergency response assistance plan index numbers, as well as quantity limits for transporting explosives by certain means of transport.

SCHEDULE 2

Schedule 2 lists the elements of classification of dangerous goods included in Classes 2 to 9 and includes the low threat consignment and emergency response assistance plan index numbers, as well as quantity limits for transporting these dangerous goods by certain means of transport. A column for the marine pollutant indication is also included.

SCHEDULE 3

Schedule 3 contains special provisions.

SCHEDULE 4

Schedule 4 shows the UN number for pure self-reactive substances. The UN number is used as an entry point into Schedule 2 to identify the remaining classification elements for the substance.

SCHEDULE 5

Schedule 5 shows the UN number for pure organic peroxides. The UN number is used as the entry point into Schedule 2 to identify the remaining classification elements for the substance.

Alternatives

Use of an Existing Program

There are international recommendations and modal requirements for the transportation of dangerous goods. These include the UN Recommendations, the ICAO Technical Instructions for air transport and the IMDG Code for transport by sea.

Some people have proposed the use in Canada of the U.S. programme in 49 CFR. However, 49 CFR is made in a legal system that is different from Canadian jurisprudence and it contains different procedures that, in some instances, would discriminate against industry and activities that are not in the United States.

Although each of the regimes mentioned above does provide, in the appropriate context, for the safe transportation of dangerous goods, none provides for all the conditions that are found in Canada. All of them, taken as a package, would not be sufficient to satisfy all the needs of the Canadian public to be protected or that of Canadian industry to be able to safely and competitively move all the goods from which our economy benefits. For example, none of the international requirements take into account the movement of dangerous goods by train or truck in North America.

However, the clear language TDG Regulations do establish some requirements based on specific versions of the ICAO Technical Instructions, the IMDG Code and 49 CFR. It then goes further and allows a person to comply with a more recent version. That is, the person must comply with the version named in the clear language Regulations or a more recent version.

In addition, most dangerous goods that arrive from the United States can be transported into Canada if they are being handled, offered for transport and transported in accordance with 49 CFR. Canadian consignors enjoy similar reciprocity in 49 CFR and can ship dangerous goods into the United States in compliance with the TDG Regulations.

The clear language Regulations maintain the advantages of using existing external programmes while providing the flexibility required for all conditions found in Canada.

Status Quo

The status quo was dismissed as a result of the Regulatory review conducted under the 1992 Budget directive to all government departments.

Benefits and Costs

Overview

In general, the way consignors and carriers of dangerous goods do business will not be adversely affected by the clear language TDG Regulations. Most will be able to conduct activities as is currently done and will be able to use the optional changes in clear language that may help them to increase efficiency. However, there may be some costs incurred by companies in reviewing their operations in light of the clear language Regulations to determine if immediate adjustments to their operations are required.

The clear language Regulations will make regulatory information more accessible and understandable. This should reduce opportunities for misinterpretation and improve compliance which should mean a higher level of public safety. During informal consultation, some commentors stated that the clear language Regulations better reflect the risks of transporting dangerous goods. In the long run, the benefits to be realized are estimated to equal or exceed any associated costs.

Specific benefit and cost issues

Benefit issues as well as cost issues that were raised during consultation were discussed and considered. In most cases, discussions with commentors led to a resolution which was then included in the clear language Regulations.

The following are some specific benefit and cost issues that were raised during consultation. They are organized in the order in which they appear in the clear language Regulations.

Low Threat Consignment (LTC): In most cases, an industry that benefits from exemptions like consumer commodities and limited quantities in the current Regulations will continue to benefit with the LTC scheme. For example, LTC quantities (see column 6, Schedules 1 and 2), except for Class 5.2, meet or exceed the quantities allowed for consumer commodities and limited quantities in Schedule VIII in the current Regulations.

During informal consultation, industry commentors noted that the LTC scheme as first presented would force them to keep two inventories, one for the Canadian market and one for the U.S. market, in cases where a quantity was not regulated in Canada but was regulated in the United Stated. To resolve this, the clear language Regulations allow industry to treat dangerous goods as fully regulated, even if they are an LTC.

Shipping Document: Changes to the information required on a shipping document, although minor, will represent an initial cost to industry. For example, some companies use computer systems to prepare shipping documents. These companies maintain a database linking UN numbers with shipping names. Each time there are changes in the TDG Regulations affecting the shipping names or UN numbers, these companies must modify their databases. This amendment is no different from previous amendments to the current Regulations that aligned the regulations with changes to the UN Recommendations. For these companies, modification to their databases may cost thousands of dollars. These costs are recovered in time saved during the preparation of shipping documents and in avoidance of errors in shipping names and UN numbers. In addition, the Directorate will make available electronic copies of Schedules 1 and 2 which contain the list of shipping names and UN numbers.

The proposed six month transition period will allow industry to deplete current inventories of preprinted forms, to reprogram systems and to revise shipping names and UN numbers.

Dangerous Goods Safety Marks: Schedules 1 and 2 in the clear language Regulations contain an increased number of shipping names that have a subsidiary class. Consequently, additional labels will be required to accommodate these subsidiary classes but this will help emergency responders in case of accidents.

Currently, subsidiary class labels are different from primary class labels in that a class number is not permitted to be shown in the bottom corner of a subsidiary class label. This increases the complexity of compliance and industry's cost. Australia and Canada submitted a paper to the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods to allow the subsidiary class label to have a class number in the bottom corner. The Committee adopted the proposal and the clear language Regulations include this change to the subsidiary class label. This will help reduce the cost of subsidiary class labels.

In the clear language Regulations, labels or placards are required for all Class 9 dangerous goods. Labels or placards are also required for Class 3 and Class 9 dangerous goods that have an elevated temperature. In addition, labels or placards are required for dangerous goods identified as marine pollutants that are transported by ship. UN Recommendations, international modal requirements and 49 CFR already include these requirements.

Companies who offer for transport or who transport Class 3 and Class 9 dangerous goods that have an elevated temperature may realize added expenses associated with preparing shipping documents and training personnel. The need to comply with the clear language Regulations depends on the temperature of the product at the time of transport. For example, if a roofing company heats a product on site prior to application, the clear language Regulations would apply to the heated product if that product remained at an elevated temperature while being transported to another location.

In the clear language Regulations, retroreflective placards must be displayed only for dangerous goods that require an emergency response assistance plan. Although more dangerous goods will require a plan, most of these dangerous goods are transported infrequently or in small quantities. On the other hand, some Class 3 products, such as gasoline, that are transported frequently, will no longer require a retroreflective placard.

Fewer retroreflective placards will be required and this may result in a saving to consignors and carriers.

Means of Containment: Beginning January 1, 2003, small means of containment must be in compliance with UN standards, regardless of when they were manufactured. It is expected that the period leading up to mandatory compliance will allow companies sufficient time to deplete inventories of non-UN means of containment, or convert them to UN standards, a process that some segments of industry have already started. Consequently, the impact is expected to be minimal.

Changes to the Canadian highway tank standards harmonize the clear language Regulations with U.S. requirements in 49 CFR, facilitating the transborder movement of dangerous goods. The new 400 series highway tanks are expected to provide higher structural integrity, better vents, pressure relief valves and manhole covers and be manufactured and maintained using improved quality control. The introduction of these tanks in some circles has already realized a benefit to the environment and the general public with fewer and smaller releases of dangerous goods. Transport Canada's administration of quality control provisions and design reviews for pressure highway tanks is expected to generate efficiencies and cost savings to manufacturers, requalifiers and users of these tanks.

The cost associated with increased inspections and tests, improvements to the tanks structure and better quality control measures are not considered to be significant or major in nature. The additional cost, for example, to manufacture a 406 highway tank instead of the current 306 tank is expected to be less than $3,000. The compressed gas industry also estimates that their total costs may rise by approximately $120,000 per year due primarily to increased frequency and detail of inspections.

Training: For employees whose work is not altered by the re-writing of the current Regulations into clear language, no supplementary training is anticipated. Awareness material alone may be sufficient to inform employees of the clear language Regulations and acquaint them with presentation and style changes. However, companies may have to use resources to determine whether or not employees require supplementary training. The complexity of a company's operation and the number of dangerous goods the company handles may affect the cost of this determination.

It is also recognized that the clear language Regulations introduce changes to the existing requirements. Where requirements have been changed, employers may be unable to ensure compliance unless their employees are made aware of the changes. For some industries, there may be a need to modify training programs or to revise training materials, to re-train trainers or to re-train key employees. This could require an investment in the tens of thousands of dollars per organization or industry sector.

Some employers may elect to re-train their entire staff in light of the clear language initiative. If all drivers in the trucking industry were to be re-trained, it is estimated that this would cost $5 million. The trucking community recognizes that not all of its drivers will require re-training.

In the long run, a clearer regulatory text will result in more efficient and less expensive training for employees.

Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP): Overall, the cost to industry is expected to be relatively unchanged. The changes in the clear language Regulations regarding whether or not a plan is required may represent an increase in cost for some and a reduction for others.

Most cases should be accommodated by existing ERAPs. Also, a number of plans will no longer be required as some of the quantities at which an ERAP is required have been raised.

What is required to be covered in an ERAP and the requirement for evidence that the resources are available to implement the plan have been clarified in the clear language Regulations. These requirements largely reflect current practices and are not expected to affect organizations that have approved plans.

The preparation of a complex ERAP for an industry sector can cost several hundred thousand dollars. However, it is possible to enter into a contract with a service provider who has the required expertise for as little as $1,000 annually or to benefit from existing plans by joining an organization. The annual fee would depend on the dangerous goods involved, the volume transported, the means of containment used, the personnel and equipment required, etc. For example, the LPG Emergency Response Corp. is a service provider for qualified companies in the propane industry.

Transition Period: When the clear language Regulations are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette there will be a six-month transition period before the coming into force of the Regulations. It is possible that some sectors of industry will find this time insufficient to go through existing supplies of labels and placards and pre-marked items such as means of containment and shipping documents. In addition, the agricultural community may need two seasons — 18 — months to exhaust current inventories of dangerous goods. However, the impact is expected to be minimal, considering that clear language consultation has been ongoing for more than four years.

Consultation

It is the policy of the Directorate that consultation should occur early, it should be frequent, direct, complete and when someone has a comment, that comment should be listened to and discussed until it is understood. The Director General specifically promised to understand the comments made by commentors before rendering any final decisions on the comment.

Consultation included the identification of issues and concerns and a major effort to obtain a wide consensus, involving groups and organizations responsible for public safety.

Consultation during development of the Clear Language initiative has been extremely effective. Consultation has lessened the need for an extensive regulatory impact analysis statement because stakeholders have contributed to the development of the clear language TDG Regulations and are aware of the costs and benefits. For example, early discussions on “low threat consignments” introduced three levels of dangerous goods to be regulated. Small quantities would be excluded from the regulations, large amounts would be regulated, and quantities that fell in between were to be partially regulated. The concept of partial regulation was too complicated to administer and of little benefit for public safety and industry, so it was dropped.

Throughout the consultation process, clarity of thought, presentation of text, costs and benefits, alternatives, enforcement policies and public safety initiatives proposed by industry as well as by groups responsible for public safety were covered. The clear language amendment addresses the concerns raised and the alternatives discussed.

On the specific issue of coupling speeds for railway tank cars, challenges to the limits on coupling speeds were resolved through several large scale tests undertaken at a cost of $166,000. This issue involved railway stakeholders who wanted the highest safe coupling speeds and tank car owners and emergency responders who wanted coupling speeds lowered.

To develop the clear language Regulations the Directorate made extensive use of the Internet, the TDG Newsletter, with a circulation of approximately 25 000, the Minister's Advisory Council (see footnote 1) on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods, the Federal-Provincial Task Force on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods (see footnote 2), meetings with industry and industry associations and public meetings with interested stakeholders. In addition, there was consultation with the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Representatives of the Directorate were head of the Canadian delegation or participated at international meetings such as the UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, the International Maritime Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the North American Free Trade Agreement's Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee.

Consultation to date includes:

Early notice of this amendment was provided through the 1993 Federal Regulatory Plan, Proposal No. 93-TC. The requirements of Article 607 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement have been met.

Year 2000

This initiative will not impact negatively on the ability of the federal government, other levels of government, or the private sector to achieve Year 2000 compliance.

Compliance and Enforcement

Compliance with the TDG Act, 1992, and its Regulations is accomplished through the existing inspection network in Canada. The network includes both federal and provincial inspection forces who inspect all modes of transport and all consignors of dangerous goods. These inspectors ensure that the various safety standards and requirements of the TDG Act,1992, and its Regulations are complied with.

During informal consultation, industry representatives commented that a higher level of compliance will be achieved due to the clarity of language in the clear language TDG Regulations and the improved presentation and style. The department agrees with this.

For Further Information Contact

Mr. Kim O'Grady, Chief, Risk Evaluation Division, Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5, (613) 990-1145 (Telephone), ogradyk@tc.gc.ca (Electronic mail).

Please send comments, in writing, on the clear language Regulations to

Ms. Linda Hume, Chief, Legislation and Regulations Division, Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (613) 998-0517 (Telephone), (613) 993-5925 (Facsimile), humel@tc.gc.ca (E mail).

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 30(1) of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 (see footnote a), that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 27 of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Transport within 90 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice. Each representation must be sent to Linda Hume, Chief, Legislation and Regulations Division, Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5.

The representations should also stipulate those parts of the representations that should not be disclosed pursuant to the Access to Information Act, in particular pursuant to sections 19 and 20 of that Act, the reason why those parts should not be disclosed and the period during which those parts should remain undisclosed. The representations should also stipulate those parts of the representations for which there is consent to disclosure pursuant to the Access to Information Act.

Marc O'Sullivan
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS REGULATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GROUP A – GENERAL MATTERS

item	part
Coming into Force, Repeal, Interpretation, General Provisions and Special Cases	Part 1

GROUP B – CORE REQUIREMENTS

item	part
Classification	Part 2
Shipping Document	Part 3
Dangerous Goods Safety Marks	Part 4
Safety Standards and Safety Requirements:
Means of Containment	Part 5

GROUP C – TRAINING, ERAP, REPORTING

item	part
Training	Part 6
Emergency Response Assistance Plan	Part 7
Actual Release and Imminent Accidental Release Report Requirements	Part 8

GROUP D – ADDITIONAL MODAL REQUIREMENTS

item	part
Road	Part 9
Rail	Part 10
Marine	Part 11
Air	Part 12

GROUP E – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

item	part
Protective Direction	Part 13
Permit for Equivalent Level of Safety	Part 14
Court Order	Part 15
Inspectors	Part 16

SCHEDULES

schedule	class
Schedule 1	Class 1, Explosives
UN Number Cross-Reference Index
Schedule 2	Classes 2 to 9
UN Number Cross-Reference Index
Schedule 3	Special Provisions
Schedule 4	Self–Reactive Substances
Schedule 5	Organic Peroxides

Footnote 1

Members of the Council represent the Association of Fire Chiefs, the Association of Police Chiefs, the Association of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (representing the provinces), labor unions, and a variety of industry associations including manufacturers, consignors, carriers and consignees. In addition, one seat is reserved for an environmentally-oriented non-governmental organization.

Footnote 2

The Federal/Provincial Task Force includes representatives from all provinces and territories. It is chaired by a provincial representative. Provinces have an important role in developing the text of the TDG Regulations because the Regulations are referenced in the statutes of each province and territory. Provinces are also responsible for delivering public protection services such as municipal fire-fighting and highway patrols.

Footnote a

S.C. 1992, c. 34

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).