Registration
SOR/2001-286 1 August, 2001

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT, 1992

Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations

P.C. 2001-1366 1 August, 2001

Whereas, pursuant to subsection 30(1) of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 (see footnote a), a copy of proposed Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations, substantially in the form set out in the annexed Regulations, was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on August 7, 1999 and a reasonable opportunity was afforded to interested persons to make representations to the Minister of Transport with respect to the proposed Regulations;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, pursuant to section 27 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 (see footnote b) , hereby makes the annexed Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS REGULATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

item	part
Coming into Force, Repeal, Interpretation, General Provisions and Special Cases	Part 1
Classification	Part 2
Documentation	Part 3
Dangerous Goods Safety Marks	Part 4
Means of Containment	Part 5
Training	Part 6
Emergency Response Assistance Plan	Part 7
Accidental Release and Imminent Accidental Release Report Requirements	Part 8
Road	Part 9
Rail	Part 10
Marine	Part 11
Air	Part 12
Protective Direction	Part 13
Permit for Equivalent Level of Safety	Part 14
Court Order	Part 15
Inspectors	Part 16

SCHEDULES

schedule	item
Schedule 1	Classes 1 to 9
Schedule 2	Special Provisions
Schedule 3	Alphabetical Index

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

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 amended 23 times.

The 23 amendments, combined with changes to international documents relating to the transport of dangerous goods, required a complete review and rewrite of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods 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.

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 was affected by many considerations, including

• the new Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 (TDG Act, 1992) ,
• the progress of international harmonization efforts,
• the increase in inter-modal consignments,
• the increase in transborder consignments,
• the increased use of dangerous goods by consumers, and a rapidly evolving technology.

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, closed 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 (UN Recommendations) . 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. Although the use of electronic records and Intelligent Transportation Systems are not extensively recognized in the current Regulations, electronic data interchange (EDI) is permitted in Part 3. 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 a 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 original intent of changing the format without affecting the content could not be maintained. However, where possible, the clear language Regulations offer ways to comply with requirements so that a person whose activities are in compliance with the current Regulations may 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 3 schedules. There are clear language features that are common to all the parts such as tables of content, italicized explanatory material and a list of the defined terms used in the part.

PART 1, COMING INTO FORCE, REPEAL, INTERPRETATION, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND SPECIAL CASES

The coming into force and repeal sections are administrative. The clear language Regulations will come into force twelve months following publication.

The interpretation section has material that is intended to guide the reader and to make the regulations easier to use. The section includes two tables that give the symbols for units of measure used in the regulations and the abbreviated name for 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", "consignment", "in transport", "offer for transport" and "in standard".

The general provisions section includes a transition provision for existing permits for equivalent level of safety and 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.

This part includes general exemptions to the regulations. Notable among these are exemptions for personal use, 500 kg and limited quantities. These exemptions are not entirely new. They are found in the current Regulations under retail (personal) exemption and exemptions for limited quantities and consumer commodities. The 500 kg exemption is similar to a current permit for equivalent level of safety, except for a lower quantity restriction per means of containment and a training requirement.

The limited quantities (LQs) exemption is closely aligned with the current Regulations for limited quantities and consumer commodities. The few requirements placed on LQs are less than what is currently required for limited quantities. The exemption reflects quantities in the forthcoming 12^th edition of the UN Recommendations. The quantities are tied to the index number shown in column 6 of Schedule 1 for a shipping name. The main difference from current requirements is that the accumulation of LQs that exceed 500 kg and that are transported from one consignor to one destination, must be accompanied by a document that includes the words "Limited Quantity" or "quantité limitée" or the abbreviation "Ltd. Qty." or "quant. ltée" and the classes of dangerous goods.

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 requirements have been updated to align them with the 11^th edition of the UN Recommendations. The current Regulations refer to the 1991, 7^th edition with the exception of safety marks that reference the 6^th edition. The clear language Regulations incorporate a number of changes adopted by the UN Recommendations since 1991. For example, the list of dangerous goods in Schedule 1 has been updated and sorted by UN number instead of by shipping name.

This 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 measure has changed from absolute volume to concentrations. In addition, some substances are listed in an appendix to this part and are included in Class 9 if they are intended for disposal and are not included in any other class. Revisions to the Leachate Extraction and Environmentally Hazardous Substances lists reflect Environment Canada's requirements.

One of the significant changes in this part is the regulation of substances that are liquids or solids and that are transported at elevated temperatures. The exceptions are asphalts and tars. 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, DOCUMENTATION

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, and a section devoted to a consist for transport by rail.

This part establishes requirements to ensure there is always a person "in possession" of the dangerous goods in transport.

The use of EDI is encouraged in this part. A shipping document can be forwarded electronically from a consignor to a carrier, from a carrier to another carrier, and from a carrier to the next person who takes possession of the dangerous goods, in each case only when all 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 some dangerous goods to have an emergency response assistance plan is taken into consideration in this part when determining the placards and UN numbers to be displayed on large means of containment. The display of UN numbers for dangerous goods that require an emergency response assistance plan will increase the display of UN numbers, permitting faster identification of goods in case of accidents. On the other hand, retroreflective placards are no longer required. As well, the requirement for labeling subsidiary classes has not changed substantially from the current Regulations.

PART 5, MEANS OF CONTAINMENT

This part includes requirements for selecting and using 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 the means of containment continues to meet this level of safety until its next test. The current Regulations only require that a means of containment be in compliance with a standard at the time of testing and not between tests.

Notable changes from the current Regulations include the phasing in, as of January 1, 2003, of small means of containment that are UN standardized means of containment and the consequent phasing out of those 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.") . Also, as of January 1, 2003, specification highway tanks will be required for the transport of large quantities of diesel fuel. Existing non-specification highway tanks for diesel fuel can continue in use until December 31, 2009, subject to inspection and testing.

When a means of containment that is not a standardized means of containment is permitted to be used, it must be 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:

• CSA B620 — Highway Tanks and Portable Tanks for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods;
• CSA B621 — Selection and Use of Highway Tanks, Portable Tanks, Cargo Compartments and Containers for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Classes 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8 and 9;
• CSA B622 — Selection and Use of Highway Tanks, Multi-unit Tank Car Tanks, and Portable Tanks for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Class 2;
• CGSB-43.125 — Packaging of Infectious Substances, Diagnostic Specimens, Biological Products and Biomedical Waste for Transport;
• CGSB-43.126 — Remanufacturing and Reconditioning of Drums Used for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods; and
• CGSB-43.146 — Intermediate Bulk Containers for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods.

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. 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 aircraft or by ship, and a section devoted to the validity of a certificate or license held by foreign carriers or crews. Changes from the current Regulations include signatures on the training certificate and the acceptance of alternative records to demonstrate proof that a person is adequately trained.

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 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 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 transport by aircraft.

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.

Part 9 contains the reciprocity sections for transporting dangerous goods by road vehicle from the United States into or through Canada. This 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 by ship and compliance with the clear language Regulations for domestic transport by ship.

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 the ICAO Technical Instructions for international and domestic transport by aircraft. The majority of the part deals with modifying 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 ambulance 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 for equivalent level of safety in order to comply with the TDG Act, 1992. However, if a person wants to conduct an activity in a way that is not consistent with the TDG Act, 1992 or its Regulations, that person may apply for a permit for equivalent level of safety to do so under section 31 of the TDG Act, 1992. The applicant must demonstrate that the activity to be authorized by the permit for equivalent level of safety would provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that which would occur if there were full compliance with the TDG Act, 1992 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 a Certificate of Designation that is issued to an inspector. As well, it establishes that an inspector may provide an Inspection Certificate 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 dangerous goods included in Classes 1 to 9, sorted numerically by UN number and includes the explosive limit, limited quantity and emergency response assistance plan index numbers as well as quantity limits for transporting these dangerous goods by certain means of transport. A column identifying marine pollutants is also included.

SCHEDULE 2

Schedule 2 contains special provisions that apply to dangerous goods.

SCHEDULE 3

Schedule 3 provides a cross-reference index to Schedule 1 by listing each shipping name and description in alphabetical order, followed by the corresponding primary class and UN number. This Schedule also includes dangerous goods that are forbidden for transport but that do not have a UN number.

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 transport by aircraft and the IMDG Code for transport by ship.

Some people have proposed the use in Canada of the U.S. programme as set out in 49 CFR, which is the portion of the United States Code of Federal Regulations which pertains to the transportation of dangerous goods. 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. Further, some international text is written as general recommendations and is not suitable as regulatory text.

However, the clear language Regulations do establish some requirements based on specific versions of the ICAO Technical Instructions, the IMDG Code and 49 CFR. They then go further and allow 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 benefit from a similar reciprocity as set out in 49 CFR as they 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. Further, the status quo would place Canada several years behind on harmonization of international and multi-modal requirements.

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 Regulations. Most will be able to conduct activities as is currently performed and will be able to use the optional changes in the clear language Regulations that may help them to increase efficiency. However, there will be costs incurred by companies in light of the clear language Regulations. These will arise when reviewing their operations to determine if immediate adjustments to their operations are required, to what extent adjustments are required, and how best to implement the adjustments. For example, re-training employees will represent an effort in time and money.

The clear language Regulations will make regulatory information more accessible and understandable. This should reduce opportunities for misinterpretation and improve compliance which will provide a higher level of public safety. During 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.

Personal and Limited Quantities Exemptions: The Low Threat Consignments (LTC) concept formerly presented in Part 1 under Special Cases has been removed. It tried to capture under one umbrella current exemptions for consumer commodities, limited quantities, retail sale, demonstration equipment, equipment repair, analysis or testing of dangerous goods, and instruments or pieces of equipment that contained dangerous goods. It was considered by many commentors as a worthwhile concept but seen as too complex to implement at this time.

The clear language Regulations have been revised to incorporate the current retail (personal) exemption and consumer commodities and limited quantities exemption (limited quantities) . The accumulation of limited quantities beyond 500 kg from one consignor to one destination requires a document and a list of the classes of dangerous goods involved in the accumulation. The added information provided on the document serves the needs of emergency response personnel attending an incident.

A 500 kg exemption, similar to an existing permit for equivalent level of safety, has been added.

Documentation: 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. For these companies, modification to their databases may cost tens of 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 3, which contain the list of shipping names and UN numbers.

The twelve month transition period will allow industry the opportunity to deplete current inventories of preprinted forms, to reprogram systems and to revise their use of shipping names and UN numbers.

Dangerous Goods Safety Marks: Schedule 1 in the clear language Regulations contains an increased number of shipping names that have a subsidiary class. In addition, subsidiary label and placard provisions have been revised, consistent with international requirements and U.S. regulations. Consequently, additional labels or placards will be needed for these subsidiary classes.

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, for Class 3 and Class 9 dangerous goods that have an elevated temperature, and for dangerous goods identified as marine pollutants that are transported by ship. The clear language Regulations will also increase the display of UN numbers with labels and placards. 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, except for asphalts and tars, that have an elevated temperature will realize added expenses associated with preparing shipping documents, applying safety marks and training personnel. The need to comply with the clear language Regulations depends on the temperature of the product at the time of transport.

In the clear language Regulations, retroreflective placards are no longer required to be displayed. This will result in a tangible saving to consignors and carriers, although some may continue to use them for their durability.

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 specification tanks 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 tank 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.

Also, as of January 1, 2003, specification highway tanks will be required for the transport of large quantities of diesel fuel. New highway tanks must comply with the 400 series requirements for highway tanks. Existing '306' specification highway tanks built before January 1, 2003, can continue to be used to transport diesel, subject to '406' inspections and tests. Existing non-specification highway tanks for diesel fuel can continue to be used until December 31, 2009, subject to '406' inspections and tests and the attachment of a special plate.

The provinces of Quebec and Ontario currently have requirements for specification highway tanks for diesel fuel in their legislation. As many carriers switch load between diesel and gasoline, which has to be transported in a specification highway tank, new requirements for diesel will have a minor impact. A larger impact is expected to be felt by the agricultural community, which currently uses fewer specification tanks. In addition, an impact will be felt by carriers in remote areas and by small construction firms.

The call for new specification highway tanks has increased over the past five years. Commentors believe the timing is appropriate as a good number of the existing fleet is in need of replacement.

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 will 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 will 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 will elect to re-train their entire staff in light of the clear language initiative. Re-training employees is expected to require a few hours at a cost of $50 to $100 per person, depending on travel or overtime required, or what training aids may be needed. For example, it is estimated that it would cost $5 million to re-train drivers in the trucking industry. This is based on the recognition that not all drivers will require re-training. One province has estimated that the cost to re-train employees who are involved in the handling, offering or transporting of dangerous goods in their province (including truck drivers) will cost $5 million dollars.

The effort to re-train employees will be mitigated by several factors. First, certificates of training must be renewed every 3 years. This normally involves training of employees. One third of these employees would, therefore, receive training within the one year transition period. This would not represent a new cost. Some companies even schedule regular training sessions on an annual basis. Second, drafts of the clear language Regulations have been available on Transport Canada's web site as this initiative has progressed. Companies have had the opportunity to assess and to start modifying, where necessary, their existing training programs. Third, to further facilitate a better understanding of the changes being introduced, the TDG Directorate will institute an awareness program that should simplify re-training efforts. Finally, new employees would normally require training on the TDG Regulations. For these employees, training on the clear language Regulations would not be a new cost.

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 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.

Coming into Force: The clear language Regulations will come into force twelve months after they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. 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, manufacturers or suppliers of agricultural products may need two seasons — 18 months — to exhaust current inventories of dangerous goods. However, the impact is expected to be reduced, considering the twelve month lead in and the possibility of obtaining permits for equivalent level of safety to address unique circumstances.

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 decision on the comments.

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 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 identified during consultation as being too complicated to administer and of little benefit for public safety and industry, so it was dropped. Of the substances which were to be partially regulated, most are fully regulated while a few are excluded from the Regulations.

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 proposed Regulations address 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 which has 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 prior to publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I included:

• five formal drafts of the clear language text prepared for consultation: draft 1 was dated December 1995, draft 2 dated March 1996, draft 3 dated September 1996, draft 4 dated June 1997 and draft 5 dated February 1998;
• drafts made available to stakeholders in hard copy, on diskette and on Transport Canada's web site:
  
  * Draft 1 — 100 copies printed for distribution, 311 copies downloaded from TC web site;
  * Draft 2 — 820 English, 315 French copies printed for distribution, 622 copies downloaded from TC web site;
  * Draft 3 — 1,120 English, 325 French copies printed for distribution, 624 copies downloaded from TC web site;
  * Draft 4 — 1,200 English, 400 French copies printed for distribution, 363 copies downloaded from TC web site;
  * Draft 5 — 280 copies printed for distribution, 241 copies downloaded from TC web site;
• introduction of the innovative step of adding Transport Canada — TDG Internet site to traditional consultation tools with the following results:
  
  * Draft 1 — 677 hits on the discussion page, 102 comments received;
  * Draft 2 — 405 hits on the discussion page, 650 comments received;
  * Draft 3 — 316 hits on the discussion page, 412 comments received;
  * Draft 4 — 103 hits on the discussion page, 174 comments received;
  * Draft 5 — 87 hits on the discussion page, 19 comments received;
• publication of numerous articles in the TDG Newsletter on the Clear Language initiative in general, on specific proposals and on the importance of consultation, which fostered communication with 25,000 readers;
• public consultation meetings (attended by approximately 500 people), set up in cooperation with the provinces and territories, were held at various cities across Canada throughout May 1996 (Yukon session was held in June) to discuss the principles of the Clear Language initiative, general content, critical areas of change and how to submit comments, including through the Internet;
• approximately 175 people responding to a survey that was conducted to obtain views on format, clarity and presentation of the clear language text and the majority of responders found steps taken to improve the TDG Regulations to be helpful or very helpful;
• receiving approximately 200 written comments (excluding Internet comments) from stakeholders on the various drafts of the clear language Regulations;
• on average, two Minister's Advisory Council meetings each year with members who represent manufacturing, transportation, emergency response, municipal governments and public interest groups and with the Council's assistance, valuable insight was gained that improved the clear language text;
• on average, two Federal-Provincial Task Force meetings each year with members who represent the safety concerns and needs of their constituents and the dedication of this group in promoting the safe transport of dangerous goods has led to a successful partnership and an improved clear language text;
• communicating and networking frequently with the U.S. Department of Transportation;
• consulting with Atomic Energy Control Board (now, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) on radioactive substances, Natural Resources Canada on explosives, Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on toxic or infectious substances and Environment Canada on substances intended for disposal;
• participating on standards committees to develop performance consensus standards that accommodate technical innovation and complement the rapid change in technology, and prescriptive standards that define how to manufacture, test and requalify means of containment; and
• meeting frequently with industry representatives at industry sites or in Ottawa to listen, and to discuss issues: for example, May 30, 1996 meeting in Toronto with the board of directors of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute; September 24, 1996 meeting with representatives of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association; November 7, 1996 meeting with members of the Compressed Gas Association; September 5, 1997 meeting in Toronto with the Railway Association of Canada; October 16-17, 1997 hosted a task force meeting on the subject of "Low Threat Consignments" with industry representatives; December 8, 1997 meeting in Ottawa with representatives of the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association; and February 18, 1998 meeting in Toronto with representatives from the agricultural community.

Early notice of this amendment was provided through the 1993 Federal Regulatory Plan, Proposals Nos. 93-TC. The requirements of Article 607 of the Canada — United States Free Trade Agreement have been met.

The clear language Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on August 7, 1999. Approximately 130 written submissions were received, many of which were very detailed, from associations, companies, government representatives and interested parties who represented Canadian and international interests.

Discussions and consultations continued following publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, at the Minister's Advisory Council and the Federal-Provincial Task Force meetings, at meetings with industry representatives and following the periodic posting "Friday Postings" on the Transport Canada web site of the latest drafts of the clear language Regulations. A Marine technical committee was also established from members of the Minister's Advisory Council to study marine issues including documentation, safety marks, segregation and marine pollutants.

Drafts were added to the Transport Canada web site in the Spring and Fall of 2000. The most recent draft was posted in June 2001.

From those consultations and discussions, changes were made to the text. In some cases, the decision was made to opt for more clarity rather than less change, accepting the proposition that a high compliance with a very good system is preferable to a low compliance with an "excellent" system.

In other cases, the decision was made to remain with the status quo, for example, withdrawing the Low Threat Consignments concept in favor of Limited Quantities.

The text was revised to add or delete requirements, to reflect current permits for equivalent level of safety, to continue current regulatory practices and to harmonize with the UN Recommendations and U.S. regulations. For example, in Part 1, explosive limit terminology has been introduced, the provisions associated with "delegating consignor duties" have been removed, the current permit for equivalent level of safety that addresses residues of dangerous goods in a drum has been added, the current documentation exemption for anhydrous ammonia has been continued and a fumigation exemption consistent with UN and U.S. practices has been introduced.

Comments were also received on the costs associated with this regulatory initiative as presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. Some commentors felt that the economic impact was considerably underestimated including the cost to re-train employees. The magnitude of these costs remains difficult to estimate as many industry representatives have not undertaken an assessment of the changes being introduced by the clear language Regulations. The railway community, for example, estimates that they will need to spend $2 million dollars. Other commentors stated that this initiative is not expected to represent a major impact to the operation of their individual companies or to their industry.

One province estimated that the cost to re-train employees in that province will be $5 million dollars. On the other hand, replacing Low Threat Consignments with Limited Quantities is expected to mitigate costs. Furthermore, to facilitate a better understanding of the changes being introduced and temper the associated costs, the Directorate will provide a comparison of the clear language Regulations and the current Regulations, will institute an awareness program that will highlight changes, including presentations in cities across Canada, publish articles in the dangerous goods newsletter, issue "interpretations" to assist users in applying the regulations, prepare advisory notices, make responses to inquiries publicly available, and will train federal and provincial inspectors.

The following outlines notable changes to the proposed Regulations based on comments received and discussions held. A report will be available that takes into account each comment received and its disposition.

PART 1, COMING INTO FORCE, REPEAL, INTERPRETATION, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND SPECIAL CASES

The coming into force date for the clear language Regulations was changed from six months to twelve months after the day the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. This is also the date on which the current Regulations will be repealed and replaced with the clear language Regulations. It would have proved too difficult to manage with both sets of regulations in place at the same time. Twelve months was requested by most commentors to allow for a smoother transition to the clear language Regulations, to allow time for modifications to current processes such as electronic documentation, and to allow time to address training needs. Some commentors asked for a longer period of time to handle inventories that would not be exhausted within one year. Permits for equivalent level of safety are expected to handle these types of circumstances and other transition issues. Other commentors favored immediate implementation or a nine month transition period.

A number of safety standards or safety requirements listed in the table to paragraph 1.3(2) (f) have been deleted, added or amended. Examples of documents that have been amended include CSA B340, CSA B620, CSA B621, CSA B622, IMDG Code, and the UN Recommendations.

Section 1.4, Definitions underwent revisions, clarifications, additions and deletions as a result of comments. The word "possession" for example, in the definition of "carrier" generated a lot of discussion. Some commentors wanted to clarify the word with the qualifier "physical". Transport Canada's position is that there must always be someone responsible for dangerous goods in transport. This is achieved by using the concept of possession. The definition for "consignor" has been clarified and simplified. The clarification is expected to address commentor concerns regarding who may assume consignor responsibilities and any unwarranted costs associated with transfer agreements. The definition of "imminent accidental release" incorporates more incidents beyond derailments and rollovers. The definition of "net explosives quantity" has been simplified to account for the net mass of explosives. There was no agreement on a definition for "normal conditions of transport". Therefore, the definition was deleted. The definition of "train" now includes a reference to the Canadian Rail Operating Rules. A new definition of "UN standardized means of containment" has been added.

The text that dealt with "delegating consignor duties" has been deleted. Commentors saw themselves drawing up formal contracts or agreements with their clients, generating unnecessary costs. This was not the intention.

The "Low Threat Consignments" (LTC) concept has been dropped. Many commentors considered it as a worthwhile concept with a sound principle but it was also seen as being too complex to implement. For example, problems surfaced with the term LTC being considered inconsistent with common terminology. Further, implementing LTC would force some industry representatives to keep two inventories, one for the Canadian market and one for the U.S. market, in cases where dangerous goods were not regulated in Canada but were regulated in the U.S.

The clear language Regulations have been revised to incorporate the current retail (personal) exemption and limited quantities exemption (consumer commodities and limited quantities) to address small quantities of dangerous goods that do not need to be regulated.

Section 1.15, Exemption for Personal Use (current retail exemption) addresses dangerous goods that are generally purchased at retail outlets and that are not intended for resale, commercial use or industrial use. The requirements are more permissive where they include transport between the residence of the purchaser and a place of use as well as between two residences.

Section 1.16, that deals with the 500 kg exemption, has been added and is similar to a current permit for equivalent level of safety, except for a lower quantity restriction per means of containment and a training requirement. Some companies may continue to use the current 500 kg permit for equivalent level of safety, in light of the lower quantity requirement in the exemption.

Section 1.17, Limited Quantities (LQs) largely replaces Low Threat Consignments and continues the idea that, below a certain threshold, there is no need to regulate. The quantity limits presented in Column 6 of Schedule 1 are more restrictive than those published in the Canada Gazette, Part I. However, they are more closely aligned with the current Regulations and quantities found in the UN Recommendations. An accumulation of limited quantities beyond 500 kg from one consignor to one destination requires a document and a list of the classes of dangerous goods involved in the accumulation. Commentors stated that this accumulation condition was not required before, would be difficult to implement and their experience did not support its inclusion to control a greater danger when accumulating these goods. However, the added information provided on the document serves the needs of emergency response personnel attending an incident.

Section 1.46, Miscellaneous Special Cases continues some exemptions, which are present in the current Regulations.

PART 2, CLASSIFICATION

The text to this Part underwent minor revisions, additions and deletions to align, amend or clarify requirements.For example, subsection 2.2(3) recognizes classifications determined by the Director, Office of Biosafety, Health Canada and by the Director, Biohazard Containment and Safety of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The section that dealt with Class 3 divisions for marine transport has been removed to recognize a similar decision of the International Maritime Organization. Asphalts and tars are excluded from the elevated temperature provisions included in Class 9.

Substances listed in Appendix 4, Leachate Extraction: Substances and Concentrations and Appendix 5, Environmentally Hazardous Substances Intended for Disposal continue to be included in Class 9 only when they are intended for disposal. Some commentors do not support the inclusion of these substances as dangerous goods. Furthermore, with the change in leachate measurement to concentration, they see the introduction of many new substances as Class 9 dangerous goods. Additional costs will be incurred when classifying and documenting these substances, applying safety marks, selecting small means of containment, and training employees. One major association estimates the cost to be in the millions of dollars. On the other hand, Environment Canada wishes to see these substances regulated and does not agree with only regulating these substances when intended for disposal. However, if this condition were removed, many common substances such as leather would become dangerous goods during their normal usage.

PART 3, DOCUMENTATION

The order of sections within this Part was changed. It now begins with consignor and carrier responsibilities instead of information on a shipping document. Subsections 3.2(5) and (6) clarify the transfer of a shipping document when the dangerous goods are being offered from one carrier to another carrier and the transfer of a document from a carrier to a person who is not a carrier. Examples of how to describe dangerous goods on a shipping document are presented in italics following paragraph 3.5(1) (c) . Subsection 3.5(3) has been added to address documentation requirements when a fumigant is used. Subsections (5) , (6) and (7) have been added to section 3.10, Location of a Shipping Document: Storage in the Course of Transportation. These subsections introduce administrative requirements for when dangerous goods are left with a rail dispatcher, a port manager or a marine terminal manager to ensure these people can be reached and have a description of the dangerous goods being stored.

Commentors felt that it was unnecessary to burden surface consignors with marine declarations or safe packing statements. Consequently, requirements under the headings "Transport by Ship: Declaration" and "Transport by Ship: Safe Packing Statement" have been removed. These will be covered under regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act. The acronym "ERP" has been added to the list of permissible acronyms for an emergency response assistance plan based on comments received.

PART 4, DANGEROUS GOODS SAFETY MARKS

The requirement for placards and orange panels to be retroreflective has been removed.

The section of the proposed Regulations that dealt with the display of safety marks before loading or packing, consignor responsibilities and carrier responsibilities has been expanded into three sections, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 respectively.

Section 4.6, Visibility, Legibility and Colour, recognizes colours specified in the U.S. regulations and the UN Recommendations. The requirement in section 4.10 to display a label for a subsidiary class has changed so that a label for each subsidiary class must be displayed instead of the first subsidiary class only. The number of labels will increase as more dangerous goods have a subsidiary class.

PART 5, MEANS OF CONTAINMENT

Section 5.6 has been revised to recognize UN standardized means of containment that have been manufactured under another country's national regulations. A number of safety standards have undergone further amendments and the reference to these in Part 5 will extend the current reciprocity arrangements between Canada and the United States. Part 5 also recognizes additional U.S. cylinders not previously grandfathered. A further requirement has been added to restrict toxic gases from being filled in certain aluminum cylinders.

Part 5 further requires that, as of January 1, 2003, specification highway tanks will be required for the transport of large quantities of diesel fuel.

PART 6, TRAINING

Revisions to this Part recognize as training certificates documents issued under 49 CFR, the International Civil Aviation Association, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code and the Marine Certification Regulations. More options have been included in sections 6.6, Keeping Proof of Training: Employer's and Self-employed Person's Responsibility and 6.7, Showing Proof of Training: Employer's and Self-employed Person's Responsibility.

PART 7, EMERGENCY RESPONSE ASSISTANCE PLAN

This Part has been revised to clarify requirements for an emergency response assistance plan when dealing with one consignment versus more than one consignment of dangerous goods. More shipping names have been added to the list of dangerous goods that require an emergency response assistance plan. Revisions have also been made to the indices that trigger an ERAP, resulting in fewer shipments that will require an ERAP. Commentors expressed concern that the changes would necessitate changes to existing plans. However, the requirements largely reflect current practices and will not affect currently approved plans.

PART 8, ACCIDENTAL RELEASE AND IMMINENT ACCIDENTAL RELEASE REPORT REQUIREMENTS

This part has undergone a number of changes. The table that defines the quantities or emission levels for immediate reporting of an accidental release of dangerous goods has been revised. The concepts of a "dangerous goods accident" and a "dangerous goods incident" as defined in the ICAO Technical Instructions have been included. Information provided in the immediate report also includes train consists that are forwarded to CANUTEC on request. Immediate and 30-day follow-up reports will be required for cylinders that have suffered catastrophic failures.

PARTS 9 and 10, ROAD and RAIL

Compliance with United States requirements governing the transport of dangerous goods by road or rail from the United States into or through Canada have been clarified.

PART 11, MARINE

This Part has been clarified to reflect current standards and practices. Emergency response assistance plans and additional requirements for the domestic transport of specific dangerous goods by passenger carrying ship have been deleted.

PART 12, AIR

This Part has been restructured and the text clarified. A number of requirements have been added that deal with explosives forbidden for transport (section 12.5) , transport by helicopter (paragraph 12. 9(14) (c)) , the transport of compressed oxygen on board an aircraft for medical reasons (subsection 12.14(3)) , and loading restrictions on flight decks (section 12.17) .

SCHEDULE 1

Schedule 1 lists all the elements of classification of dangerous goods included in Classes 1 to 9, in place of using two schedules as was done in the publication version which appeared in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Furthermore, Schedule 1 has been sorted numerically by UN number consistent with the UN Recommendations, instead of alphabetically by shipping name. Class 1, Explosives remains distinct from the other classes since explosives appear first when arranged by UN number. Explosive limits and limited quantity index numbers are used in place of LTC index values. Consignors and carriers who wish to continue to access classification details using a shipping name, will have to follow a two-step process by first consulting the alphabetic cross-reference index found in Schedule 3 to acquire the UN number. However, Transport Canada will publish and maintain on its web site a version of Schedule 1 alphabetized by shipping name.

SCHEDULE 2

The list of special provisions that apply to dangerous goods has undergone change. Special provisions have been added and some have been deleted. For others, the text has been clarified or condensed. UN number(s) of the dangerous goods to which the special provisions apply have been added in italics following each special provision. Special provisions now list explosive quantity limits permitted on a road vehicle with or without an Explosives Vehicle Certificate. These quantity levels were found in the current Schedule 1 that dealt exclusively with Class 1, Explosives. A number of special provisions have been added to mirror current provisions found in the UN Recommendations.

SCHEDULE 3

Schedule 3 provides a cross-reference index to Schedule 1 by listing the shipping names and description in alphabetical order, including the primary class and UN number. The order is established by a standard computer sort (that is, a sort based on ASCII codes) .

SCHEDULES 4 and 5

These schedules that dealt with self-reactive substances and organic peroxides, respectively have been deleted. Classification of these substances involves the UN Recommendations.

In Summary

There is widespread genuine support for the proposed Regulations notwithstanding individual issues that were raised following publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Changes were made following publication based on comments and consultations. For example, commentors raised concerns about negative impacts Low Threat Consignments and the definition of consignor would have on their industry and these were changed to address those comments. On the other hand, requirements concerning Appendix 4, Leachate Extraction: Substances and Concentrations and Appendix 5, Environmentally Hazardous Substances Intended for Disposal remain unchanged satisfying neither industry, who want less regulation, nor Environment Canada, who want more regulation.

All parties are looking forward to having the Regulations published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

These Regulations are developed under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 which has as its objective the protection of public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods. Public safety is defined in the Act as the protection of human life and health and of property and the environment. Consequently, effects on the environment resulting from accidental releases during transport have been fully considered.

Consultations were also held concerning forcing modal shifts for the transport of dangerous goods but it could not be determined that such shifts would be beneficial to public safety. Thus, these Regulations will not affect the location or level of use of the different transportation modes and consequently will have no negative impact on the environment, from a strategic point of view.

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 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. Transport Canada agrees with this.

For further information on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, please contact:

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

For further information on the clear language Regulations, please contact:

Ms. Linda Hume-Sastre
Director, Legislation and Regulations Branch
Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Tel.: (613) 998-0517
FAX: (613) 993-5925
E-mail: humel@tc.gc.ca

Footnote a

S.C. 1992, c. 34

Footnote b

S.C. 1992, c. 34

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 firefighting and highway patrols.

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).