North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Land Transportation Standards Sub-Committee (LTSS), Hazardous Materials Land Transportation Standards Working Group (LTSS, Group 5). LTSS Group 5's primary focus over the past two years has been to harmonize the hazardous materials regulations of the NAFTA partners.

The efforts have been primarily devoted to reviewing and commenting on the emerging Official Mexican Standards with the goal of assuring that the standards developed in Mexico are consistent with existing U.S. and Canadian regulations and the UN Recommendations. The Mexican regulation entitled "Regulations for Surface Transportation of Hazardous Materials and Wastes" was signed on April 7, 1993. It provides a framework for the overall regulation of the transport of hazardous materials and wastes within Mexico. The regulation authorized the Mexican Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT) to develop hazardous materials transportation standards augmenting the regulation. Since the authorization of the regulation, at least 22 standards (commonly referred to as NOMs short for Normas) have been made effective and published in the Mexican equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register (Diario Official). Refer to the Mexican Standards for a current listing Normas/NOMs (refer to the link on the right).

The Mexican standards, cover various regulatory requirements including a list of hazardous materials and associated special provisions, hazard communication (e.g emergency response information, labeling, placarding and shipping paper requirements), package marking and testing, intermediate bulk and bulk packagings (e.g. IBCs, cargo tank trucks, portable tanks), compatibility, segregation and classification criteria. The standards also cover visual inspection of transport units, securement and restraint of lading and cleaning of transport units. To improve awareness of the Mexican regulations and standards, PHMSA has translated the Mexican Regulations for Surface Transportation of Hazardous Materials and Wastes and the Official Mexican Standards (NOMS) into English.

As part of the harmonization effort, Group 5 has also devoted a large portion of its efforts to harmonizing emergency response requirements. The Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) was published in the three languages of the NAFTA countries and is currently available from the Government Printing Office as well as through commercial sources. The ERG was based on a compilation of the best attributes of the U.S. and Canadian ERGs and recommendations provided by SCT (refer to the link to the right).

U.S. and Canadian regulations are currently harmonized as both are now based on the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. In addition, both regulations include reciprocity provisions to resolve some minor differences. Nevertheless, differences exist and Group 5 provides a forum for resolving these differences. Transport Canada is currently involved in publishing their "Plain Language Amendment". The US has formally committed on the Plain Language Amendment through its participation in Group 5.

Transport Canada publishes its regulations and proposed amendments to its regulations on the Internet. To view current Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Regulations or a major re-write, into clear language, of the entire TDG Regulations visit Transport Canada's website (refer to the link to the right).

Regardless of efforts to harmonize differences between the regulations and the reciprocity provisions, some differences remain as a result of differing regulatory implementation schedules, statutory mandates on the parts of each government, differing regulatory decisions (e.g. Poison inhalation hazard requirements in the U.S., corrosive gas classification in Canada) and regulatory decisions made as a result of the public comment process. Realizing that total elimination of regulatory differences would be nearly impossible, Group 5 agreed to pursue the development of a North American Dangerous Goods Transportation Code. The Code will be based on the "Model Rule" being developed by the UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. PHMSA also has developed a guidance document to help identify differences between US DOT and Mexican hazardous materials regulations (refer to the link at the right).

At the Group 5 Meeting in Queretaro, Mexico, provided an update on the status of certification bodies in Mexico for the certification and marking of UN specification packagings. Mexico indicated that an organization seeking accreditation must first apply to become accredited by the Mexican Accreditation Entity (EMA). The EMA accreditation process involves applying to EMA, who will coordinate with SCT and issue the certification contingent upon SCT's authorization. The forms needed to apply to EMA for certification status are available by clicking the items at the right.

Working Group 5 Meeting Minutes Minutes of Meeting

Lic. Irma Flores of the Mexican Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte (SCT) opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. Representing Canada was Frank Ritchie, and representing the United States were Shane Kelley (DOT/PHMSA) and Francisco Gonzales (DOT/FRA). Also in attendance were representatives from the following Mexican organizations: Nuclear Safety and Safeguards Commission, Department of Interior and Disaster Prevention, the Environmental and Hazardous Materials Management Administration, Civil Aeronautics Commission, Ministry of Defense, and Federal Rail Division. The minutes of the previous Group 5 meeting in Ontario, Canada, were briefly discussed and were noted to have been approved by all three countries and considered final. The USA indicated that the minutes are available on the DOT Hazardous materials web site.

During the meeting each country provided an update on their current regulatory initiatives. Canada did not provide a detailed briefing but indicated that their Clear Language Amendment had been finalized. The Clear Language Amendment is available on the internet (refer to the link to the right). The US noted that their regulations and proposed rulemakings were available via the internet. Mexico noted similarly that their standards were available online.

Mexico Regulatory Update

NOM-007 (Marking Requirements for Hazardous Material and Waste Packagings) has been revised to include markings for salvage packagings and is ready for publication as a final rule.

NOM-003 (Labeling Requirements for Hazardous Materials Packagings Used for the Land Transportation of Hazardous Materials and Wastes) will be amended to make primary and subsidiary risk labels the same consistent with current international regulations and the 49 CFR.

NOM-009 (Compatibility for the Storage and Transportation of Class 1 Explosives) has been amended to take into account some comments from their Ministry of Defense and is in an NPRM stage. This NOM addresses certain requirements for explosives.

NOM-010 (Compatibility and Segregation Requirements for the Storage and Transportation of Hazardous Materials and Wastes) regarding segregation has been updated to be consistent with the requirements of the 49 CFR and the UN Model Regulations, 12th Revised Edition.

NOM-020 (Requirements for the Construction of Cargo Tank Vehicles Used for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials and Wastes) has been amended to specify the qualification and testing requirements for SCT 306, SCT 307, and SCT 312 series cargo tanks.

NOM-024 (Requirements for the Construction, Reconditioning and Testing of Hazardous Materials and Waste Packagings) has been revised to take into account salvage package testing. It also specifies that use of reconditioned packages which pass the tests is permitted.

NOM-043 (Requirements for the Transport Document Used for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials and Wastes) is in the process of being revised to take into account the documentation requirements in the UN Model Regulations, 12th Revised Edition. Revisions include allowing an alternative sequence for the elements of the shipping description, specifying the number and types of packagings on shipping papers, and requiring the subsidiary risk to be indicated in the basic description. These revisions are consistent with the 2003-2004 ICAO Technical Instructions and the 2003 IMDG Code, as well as with amendments proposed to the 49 CFR in HM-215 E.

Mexico's Domestic Adoption of Provisions of the ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code)

Mexico indicated that while they already recognize the use of the ICAO TI and IMDG Code, they are working to develop national regulations for air transport of dangerous goods consistent with these international regulations. This will not affect the use of the international regulations for import and export shipments.

Certification of Test Laboratories in Mexico

Mexico indicated that they have approved two additional companies to certify hazardous materials hazardous materials packages in addition to Normex. As indicated in previous Group 5 minutes, Normex has been approved by SCT to certify hazardous materials packagings. The two newly certified companies include Fischer and Visaplast. Fischer and Visaplast however are only certifying their own packagings, and are not authorized as "third party" labs as Normex is.

To date SCT has not approved any U.S. labs to test Mexican-manufactured packages. By law, the approval process requires accreditation by the Mexican Accreditation Entity (EMA) and approval by SCT. EMA indicated during the meeting that they were ready to accredit foreign labs, but SCT indicated that it was still working internally to develop an approval process for these labs. The U.S. pointed out during the meeting that the current situation was detrimental not only to U.S. Test labs but also to Mexican packaging manufacturers, especially considering that Normex, the only approved lab in Mexico, could not handle the industry volume in Mexico. The U.S. emphasize the practicality and importance of mutual recognition of Test labs. Mexico agreed to work with the U.S. to achieve this goal.

North American Model Standard (NAMS)

The group discussed the North American Model Standard (NAMS). The group noted that the work on the NAMS had prompted a closer look at each country's current domestic requirements, most recently with special attention given to requirements for rail transport. The US representative from FRA commented that he had been working closely with Canada to further develop the requirements for rail transport. The US commented that a draft version of the NAMS incorporating provisions for rail transport was under development, and that provisions for highway transport would be the next major task in advancing the draft.

2004 Emergency Response Guidebook

The working group noted that an updated Emergency Response Guidebook would be published in 2004. Mexico stated that it had received many requests for Spanish editions of the Guidebook from other Central and South American countries, and that it had been able to make use of its extra copies of the 1996 edition by providing them to those requesters. The US indicated it would work with Mexico to ensure that copies of the updated Guidebook were available to emergency responders in Mexico, particularly in high traffic areas along the US-Mexico Border.

NAFTA LTSS Group 5 Meeting Minutes
Queretaro, Mexico - October, 2000

25-28 October 1999 Introduction Minutes of Meeting

Dario Arrieta Leyva of the Mexican Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte (SCT) opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. He introduced the other Mexican delegates, Irma Flores and Claudia Cerrano. Representing Canada were Jacques Savard and Frank Ritchie, and representing the United States were Robert Richard, Shane Kelley (DOT/PHMSA), Ed Pritchard and Ed English (DOT/FRA). Also in attendance were representatives from the following Mexican organizations: Nuclear Safety and Safeguards Commission, Department of Interior and Disaster Prevention, the Environmental and Hazardous Materials Management Administration, Civil Aeronautics Commission, Ministry of Defense, and Mexican Transportation Institute.

The minutes of the previous Group 5 meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, were briefly discussed and were noted to have been approved by all three countries and considered final. The USA indicated that the minutes are available on the DOT Hazardous materials web site

Regulatory Updates

Each delegation presented an overview of their current regulatory initiatives, as summarized below:

Canadian Regulatory Update

Canada noted that their clear language regulations had been published in draft form and that extensive comments were received from a number of parties including the United States Department of Transportation. They indicated that the comments from the US were comprehensive and were welcomed because they focused on harmonization with the requirements of the UN Recommendations. Canada indicated that the Gazette II version of the Plain Language Amendment will most probably be published by the end of March or April 2001. The Plain Language amendment will be harmonized with the UN 11th revised edition, aside from the UN packing instructions which will be addressed in a Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) standard. Canada indicated that they would develop a follow-up regulatory project to take into account the 12th revised edition possible before the Plain Language Amendment is published final. The most recent Amendment to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) and International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI) will also be incorporated in the plain language amendment.

Canada further indicated that Canadian Standard CSA-620 will be updated to include the 400 series tank truck requirements and a meeting on CSA-620 will be held in Toronto in January 2001. All interested parties were invited to attend. Canada indicated that they are also completing work on the reformatted CGSB 43.147 standard for rail tank cars. Both of these standards will be considered when developing the requirements for cargo tank trucks and rail cars in the North American Transportation of Dangerous Goods Standard (NATDGS). Canada also indicated that the CGSB 43.146 standard for IBCs will be harmonized with the UN 11th edition including the packing instructions. Canada stated that they are also working on a standard for infectious substances, including special packaging for biomedical waste for disposal. This will be covered in CGSB 43.125. The United States indicated that they are working on a related rulemaking which will address bulk packagings for medical waste (i.e. HM-226). Canada further indicated that they are working on better reciprocity with respect to recognition of approvals for imported packagings such as cylinders and DOT-specification containers that are not UN specification packagings (e.g. DOT 56 and 57 portable tanks). Canada has been working jointly with the US to enforce UN performance packaging standards. In one case a Canadian manufacturer's approval authority was revoked on the basis of joint enforcement efforts. A number of other joint enforcement efforts have led to successful enforcement actions. Canada expressed an interest in further developing a framework for enforcement in this regard.

United States Regulatory Update

The US stated they had, over the past year, done a self-assessment of their program. One aspect of this assessment included a statistical analysis of the incidents documented in the Hazardous Materials Incident Database. The analysis found that approximately 400 serious incidents occur each year, resulting in an average of 11 fatalities annually. In 80% of these incidents, the cause was shown to be human error, as opposed to a mechanical failure of the packaging. The assessment showed that enforcement activities need to be more effectively focused on shippers and that shippers are the most important link in the transportation chain as they prepare the packaging, documentation, and certify shipments to be in compliance with the regulations. The US indicated that it is evaluating how it will increase its enforcement activities related to shippers. The US also indicated that training was also identified as an area that needs to be strengthened, as training prepares shippers and others involved in hazardous materials transportation to appropriately apply the regulations. PHMSA outreach coordinators have now been established in each regional enforcement office in the US and will help in this regard. The US also explained that there is also an initiative to create an office under the Secretary which will coordinate key hazardous material safety issues between the modal administrations and will follow up in attempting to facilitate improvements in the Department's hazardous materials programs based on the performance evaluation findings.

The US provided information on several regulatory initiatives that are in progress including:

HM-226 Infectious Substances. PHMSA will propose to revise the requirements for infectious substances, including regulated medical waste (RMW) to: adopt defining criteria, hazard communication and packaging requirements for Division 6.2 materials consistent with international standards; revise broad exceptions for diagnostic specimens and biological products; provide additional packagings for RMW; and make other changes to improve and clarify regulatory requirements and exceptions. These proposals are intended to ensure an acceptable level of safety in the transport of infectious substances, facilitate international transportation and make it easier to understand and comply with the regulations. Several packagings for medical wastes are being considered based on current DOT exemption medical waste packagings including a specially designed leakproof bulk bin which could be filled with intermediate bulk bags.

HM-215D Harmonization with International Standards. PHMSA proposed to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to maintain alignment with international standards by incorporating various changes to proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations and vessel stowage requirements. In addition, PHMSA proposed to revise the requirements for intermediate bulk containers and UN portable tanks for alignment with international requirements. Because of recent changes to the IMDG Code, the ICAO TI, and the UN Recommendations, these proposed revisions are necessary to facilitate the transport of hazardous materials in international commerce. As the international regulations are adopting ST-1 for radioactive materials, PHMSA proposed that ST-1 be adopted to authorize voluntary compliance beginning July, 2001. Some of the changes proposed in this rule include the deletion of most NA entries in the Hazardous Materials Table and the removal of the requirement to differentiate between primary and subsidiary hazard labels.

HM-213A Hazardous Materials: Cargo Tank Rollover Damage Protection Requirements; Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) PHMSA is requesting comments on a research study conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) titled ``The Dynamics of Tank-Vehicle Rollover and the Implications for Rollover-Protection Devices.'' The intended effect of this action is to obtain information concerning the need, if any, for amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) concerning cargo tank rollover damage protection devices, the costs and benefits associated with such amendments, and ways to minimize impacts on small businesses. This ANPRM addresses DOT specification cargo tanks used for the transportation of liquid hazardous materials. Canada explained the Province of Quebec is planning on hosting a cargo tank rollover symposium in June 2001. DOT also explained that it will be addressing the issue of wet lines on cargo tanks and that in some cases these lines have been a source of ignition in accidents as the fuel in the lines is more easily exposed in a crash and can cause a hazardous situation.

HM-220 Cylinders PHMSA explained that this proposed rule aims to simplify the HMR for construction of cylinders; provide for flexibility in the design, construction and use of cylinders; recognize recent advances in cylinder manufacturing and requalification technologies; promote safety though simplification of the regulations; reduce the need for exemptions; and facilitate international commerce. The intended effect of this action is to enhance the safe transportation of hazardous materials in cylinders. This proposed rule has generated a lot of comments, and PHMSA is considering whether to wait for the UN to complete their work before adopting new standards for cylinders. There are some non-controversial issues in HM-220 which may be addressed in the immediate future by rulemaking.

HM-223 Applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations to Loading, Unloading, and Storage PHMSA explained that this rulemaking project is concerned with addressing the questions "When does transportation begin?" and "When does transportation end?" relative to loading, unloading, and storage of hazardous materials. PHMSA explained that it is continuing to evaluate this issue to determine the best way to promote safety in transportation and transportation-related activities.

HM-229 Revisions to the Incident Reporting Requirements and the Detailed Hazardous Materials Incident Report DOT Form F 5800.1 PHMSA explained that it is in the midst of evaluating the current incident reporting requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations and the Hazardous Materials Incident Report form (DOT Form F 5800.1). The Federal hazardous material transportation law requires the Secretary of Transportation to maintain a facility and technical staff sufficient to maintain a central reporting system to develop a statistical compilation on casualties and conduct reviews on hazardous materials transportation. Any changes resulting from this rulemaking are intended to increase the usefulness of data collected for risk analysis and management by government and industry and, where possible, provide relief from regulatory requirements. PHMSA emphasized the need to collect incident data in order to analyze trends in hazardous materials transportation safety.

Mexican Regulatory Update

Mexico commented that the challenge in their government is that the various modes have their own regulations which affect hazardous materials transport, and that SCT regulations only cover land transport. But for the first time this year Mexico has made progress in coordinating multimodal regulatory development.

The following NOMs will be revised:

NOM-002 - Dangerous Goods List. This will be updated consistent with the 10th revised edition. Another agency responsible for radioactive materials has made some comments which may introduce some minor changes. A draft of this NOM will be provided to the U.S. and Canada for review prior to being published as an official draft standard. The US commented that NOM-002 should be revised to authorize use of proper shipping names which appear in the latest editions of the UN Recommendations. The US also proposed that Mexico add text to clarify that a substance is not considered a hazardous material simply on the basis that it is listed in NOM-002 if it does not meet the criteria of a hazardous material when tested. Products which would benefit from such a clarification include paint and ethylene glycol.

NOM-003 - Labels. This standard has been published final and has been updated to be more multi-modal. It now also covers labels and marks used for air (e.g. magnetized material mark) and sea transport (e.g. marine pollutant mark).

NOM-004 - Placarding. This standard has been published final. One element of this standard is the elimination of the residue placard. Tanks containing residue would need to be placarded as though they were full. In addition, the UN placard dimensions (250mmX250mm) are now referenced.

NOM-005 - Emergency Response Information. This standard has been published final and sets forth the requirements for providing emergency response information with dangerous goods shipments. Included in this updated final standard is the option to use a page from the Emergency Response Guidebook to satisfy the requirements of the standard.

NOM-020 - Construction of Cargo Tank Vehicles. This standard will be revised and published soon. The revision will incorporate the ASME Code specifications for 307, 308, and 312 tanks.

NOM-057 - Cargo tank trucks (MC/TC 331). This standard is on public display for review and is consistent with the U.S. and Canadian MC/TC 331 standards.

NOM-011 - The US recommended that Mexico adopt the inner packaging limits that were adopted by the UN Committee of Experts on the basis of a US proposal (see ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/34/Add.2, pages 13-15) in Nom-011. The US also recommended that Mexico consider whether the limited quantity packaging limits should be included in NOM-011 or in NOM-002, the latter approach being more consistent with the format of the UN Dangerous Goods List.

Status of Certification Bodies in Mexico

The US asked Mexico to provide an update on the status of certification bodies in Mexico for the certification and marking of UN specification packagings. Mexico indicated that an organization seeking accreditation must first apply to become accredited by the Mexican Accreditation Entity (EMA). EMA then reviews the application and coordinates with SCT to ensure that the NOMs in question are fully met (in the case of UN packagings the relevant NOMs would be NOM-007 regarding UN markings and NOM-024 regarding UN specification packagings). SCT gives the ultimate approval to EMA, who then accredits the applicant.

Mexico advised that as part of the accreditation procedure, EMA must make an initial site visit, at the expense of the applicant, to verify that the organization requesting accreditation has the ability to perform the functions necessary in accordance with the relevant NOMs. Mexico indicated that there are recurrent inspections every 2 years, which again would be at the expense of the accredited party. The organization receiving accreditation is not required to have their facility physically located in Mexico but must have an office located in Mexico. The US expressed concern that this process was not consistent with the approval of test labs in the US and Canada and that it was overly restrictive. Mexico explained that the process was consistent with their laws on standardization and accreditation and they were bound by the provisions of these laws. They indicated that they would work toward relaxing the requirements based on the US comments in the future.

The US obtained the forms necessary to apply to EMA for accreditation (the forms are in Spanish; refer to the links on the right)

United Nations Committee of Experts Issues

Mexico commented that they encouraged further coordination in developing joint positions on issues at the UN in the interest of North America. Canada and the United States agreed that this was necessary and the US stated that they would provide a summary document of the current issues before the Committee, which will meet in Geneva, Switzerland on December 4-13, 2000.

The US stressed that two important issues before the Committee were of particular concern. These included the sequence of information on shipping papers and transport provisions for limited quantities. The UN SCOE previously made a decision at its 18th session to change the sequence to require the UN number to appear first in the shipping description. Canada, the US, and Mexico agreed that this change was unnecessary and would require many costly changes without improving safety, and that the issue should be brought again to the attention of the Committee. Concerning limited quantities, it was noted that there was a proposal being considered which would essentially require placarding for limited quantities. Canada agreed with the US that it would be hasty to require placards at this point without further researching the risks posed by limited quantities, as the volume limits of inner packagings for limited quantities are restricted to small amounts and the risk is therefore minimized. Furthermore, limited quantities are not authorized for substances deemed to be the most hazardous. Therefore it would not be advisable to make changes to requirements which would pose new costs to industry without carefully studying the issues involved and justifying the changes.

The US also recommended that Mexico consider revising NOM-002 (the standard containing the list of dangerous goods) to incorporate language which would allow the use of proper shipping names which are agreed to by the UN Committee and incorporated in the international modal regulations. The proposed language would also clarify that if a listed substance does not meet the classification criteria in the UN it would not be subject to the regulations, except in the case of materials for which human experience had been provided as the supporting data for their inclusion in the regulations. Mexico agreed that language to address these issues could be incorporated in NOM-002 and noted that this would be beneficial with respect to the updating of NOM-002 as it would preclude the need to frequently update NOM-002 with new proper shipping names. Currently NOM-002 is based on the 8th Revised Edition of the UN Recommendations.

Mexico commented that they would recommend to the upcoming administration (i.e. Vincente Fox's administration) that Mexico continue to be represented at the UN meetings. A transition team member attended the LTSS meeting. Canada and the US were informed that decisions would be made on whether politically appointed SCT representatives are to be replaced in April 2001.

North American Transportation of Dangerous Goods Standard

Canada commented that it was hoped that by the end of next year a draft NATDGS standard would be completed. Canada proposed that a steering committee be formed which would be completely devoted to the development of the NATDGS and which would provide a more succinct decision making body and focal point to which industry could provide comments. Canada proposed that the committee meet on an ad-hoc basis to aid in the process of creating the NATDGS. The US FRA presented a document which contained an overview of the current regulatory system, recent regulatory developments, and challenges in making compatible the standard-related measures of the three countries. The PHMSA representative indicated that the proposed structure of the NATDGS committee was overly complex and that it was not necessary to develop such a complex bureaucracy. He indicated that the focus should be on the task at hand (i.e. completing the NATDGS). Canada commented that the points made in the paper could be incorporated by the steering committee and that the proposals to streamline the structure made by PHMSA could be adopted. It was ultimately agreed that the creation of a small steering committee consisting of a representative from each country was in order, provided that the ultimate decision-making authority was retained by Group 5.

Group 5 agreed that three major components to be developed for the NATDGS are model regulations for cylinders, tank cars, and tank trucks. Industry participation in the development process was noted as crucial to ensure that proper technical knowledge and skills are used to create the best possible product.

A work program was proposed by the US (see Annex 1 of this document).

Cylinders

The US noted two issues regarding the incorporation of cylinder standards within the NATDGS exist - (1) adoption of UN specifications and (2) recognition of existing cylinders. Canada agreed and suggested that rather than re-writing standards into the NATDGS, that the existing standards of both countries be adopted by reference. Mexico commented that historically construction of cylinders was regulated first by the department of commerce then by the department of energy for LPG cylinders only. Therefore there would need to be coordination with these agencies on this issue. The US asked which standards Mexico was considering adopting. Mexico responded that in addition to the UN specifications which are currently under development, Canada had submitted a specification they are analyzing. The US offered to provide existing specifications for cylinders in US Regulations so that Mexico could also consider them for adoption in their national regulations. Mexico agreed to review these specifications. It was agreed that the work of the UN on this issue should be completed and used as a basis for the NATDGS.

Tank Trucks

The US commented that it had reviewed the regulations of both the US and Canada and in comparing the requirements noted that the requirements were very much in harmony. The US agreed to attend the upcoming CSA B620, 621 and 622 meetings in Toronto to discuss with that group how the cargo tank truck requirements would be incorporated into the NATDGS, to observe the CSA process and to gain a better understanding of some of the key issues relative to Canadian cargo tank truck owners, manufacturers and users. It was agreed that the proposed steering committee would develop the format of the text for incorporation of cargo tank truck requirements within the NATDGS. The US agreed to take the lead in this respect.

Tank Cars

It was similarly agreed that the proposed steering committee would facilitate the development of the tank car standard and its incorporation in the NATDGS on the basis of the CGSB 43-147 standard which was recently updated to include requirements which are consistent with those in Canada, the US and Mexico. The US agreed to develop the first draft in the Model Regulation format.

Domestic Regulatory Exceptions in the NATDGS

The US commented that Group 5 needs to review which exceptions would be necessary for the NATDGS. Canada commented that it would be best to delay formal discussion of exceptions until 2002; the US and Mexico agreed as exceptions would in any case be handled on a national basis.

2000 Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG)

The 2000 ERG is now available in English, French and Spanish. Canada, Mexico, and the US agreed to continue to coordinate future editions of the guidebook, which is an excellent resource for emergency responders and provides essential information in the event of a transportation incident.

Mexico commented that their large surplus of 1996 Spanish guidebooks would be distributed to emergency responders in Mexico and also in South America where they could be put to good use. Mexico indicated they are considering issuing a supplement to the 1996 version which would capture the changes made to the 2000 version.

The United States commented that the 1996 version is still recognized and is by no means "obsolete", and applauded Mexico's efforts in distributing the surplus 1996 guidebooks.

---

Annex I
North American Transportation of Dangerous Goods Standard Work Plan

---

Statement of work: To develop user friendly plain language model standards for the transport of dangerous goods within North America.

Purpose: To promote the implementation of harmonized dangerous goods transport regulations by Canada, the United States and Mexico for the purpose of enhancing safety, improving trade and facilitating the seamless transportation of dangerous goods between the NAFTA countries. The NAFTA countries will use the model standards as a basis for their national transport of dangerous goods regulations.

Discussion: Canada, the United States and Mexico have agreed to develop model standards for the transport of dangerous goods within North America. The model standards will be based on the United Nations Model Regulation on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. However, since the UN Model Regulation does not currently include requirements for the design, construction and use of cargo tank trucks and rail tank cars, these will be developed by the Land Transportation Standards Sub-Committee's (LTSS) Working Group on the Land Transport of Dangerous Goods (Group 5). In addition, harmonized requirements for the design, construction and use of compressed gas cylinders will be developed. Since the development of compressed gas cylinder requirements will undertaken by the UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN COE) during its 1999-2000 biennium, Group 5 will participate in this work and will consider how these requirements can be adopted for use in North America. Group 5 will consider whether additional North American requirements (e.g. quality assurance provisions, certification, retesting requirements) are necessary. Group 5 will also consider any specific regulatory exceptions necessary to be incorporated into the North American Model Standards based on those allowed in the national regulations of the NAFTA countries (e.g. DANGEROUS placard, combustible liquid requirements, labeling and placarding exceptions, consumer commodity provisions, any other mutually acceptable exceptions). The model standards should include transition provisions (e.g. transition periods for adoption of regulations), grandfather provisions (e.g. continued use of MC 300 cargo tanks) and reciprocity provisions as necessary.

Work Strategies and Guiding Principles: The following are the work strategies and principles adopted by Group 5:

1. Maintain consistency with the UN Recommendations to the greatest extent practicable. Only adopt differences where it is essential to the specific interests of transport within North America. Any differences adopted should be presented and proposed for incorporation in the UN Recommendations.
2. Work on the North American Standards for the Transport of Dangerous Goods should involve the participation of industry and government entities. However final decision making and approval of the standards will be the sole responsibility of the government through Group 5. Group 5 will review and approve all standards developed. Agreement and approval of the standards will be subject to full consensus by the three NAFTA countries involved in the work.
3. Group 5 will use a "plain language" approach in the development of the North American Standards.

Time frames:

Complete the work on the first edition of the North American Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Standards.

---

Annex II
NAFTA LTSS Group 5 Contact List

---

CANADIAN DELEGATION	E-MAIL	PHONE
JACQUES SAVARD	savard@tc.gc.ca	(613) 990 1154
FRANK RITCHIE	ritcif@tc.gc.ca	(613) 998 5268
ZENON LEWYCKY	Iewyckz.tc.gc.ca	(613) 998 5266

UNITED STATES DELEGATION	E-MAIL	PHONE
ROBERT A. RICHARD	bob.richard@dot.gov	(202) 366-4359
SHANE KELLEY	shane.kelley@dot.gov	(202) 366-4359
EDWARD R. PRITCHARD	ed.pritchard@fra.dot.gov

MEXICO DELEGATION	E-MAIL	PHONE
LIC. DARIO ARRIETA, SCT	darrieta@sct.gob.mx	56-84-08-06
LIC. IRMA FLORES HERRERA, SCT	lflores@sct.gob.mx	56-84-01-88
ING. LAURA ACUNA GUTIERREZ, SCT	alozada@sct.gob.mx	56-36-82-57
ING. EDITH MARTINEZ ROSETE, INE		56-24-34-44
LIC. TOMAS MARTINEZ LOPEZ, CONASENUSA	cnensi@servidos.unam.mx	50-95-32-00 ext. 426
ISIDRO VEGA GARCIA, SEDENA		56-26-59-03
ING. RUBEN D. RIVERA BALBOA, CENAPRED		56-06-95-20 ext. 17109

LTSS GROUP 5
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LAND TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS GROUP
Baltimore, Maryland
25-28 October 1999

Minutes of Meeting

Introductions & Approval of Agenda

The members of the group introduced themselves. The proposed agenda was adopted.

Future of Group 5

The question was raised as to the future of Group 5 under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Land Transportation Standards Sub-Committee (LTSS) since the deadline established in the NAFTA for harmonizing hazardous materials standards is January 1, 2000. The group agreed that while the hazardous materials standards of the three countries have been substantially harmonized consistent with the NAFTA, the cooperation amongst the three countries and the harmonization work must be continued in order to keep pace with the continually evolving international standards and advances in modern technology. On this basis, the group agreed that their work should continue regardless of whether it is under the umbrella of the LTSS or carried out under a less formal framework. However, the group indicated that they would prefer to work as a working group under a framework similar to that of the LTSS because it provides a structured forum for the countries to meet and discuss the issues relevant to the transport of dangerous goods within North America.

Group 5 Progress Report and Work Plan

The group assessed their progress in accomplishing the NAFTA goal of harmonizing hazardous materials standards by January 1, 2000 and agreed that the objectives of NAFTA have been achieved since the hazardous materials regulations of the three countries have been substantially harmonized. However, the group agreed that the work in harmonizing hazardous materials standards was not complete and that further efforts are required to keep pace with evolving international standards and modern technology. The group agreed to provide to the plenary session a list of accomplishments to date and a copy of its work plan which are annexed to this report.

North American Transport of Dangerous Goods Standard

The U.S. opened the discussion concerning the North American Transport of Dangerous Goods Standard (NATDGS). The group confirmed their commitment to develop a user friendly, plain language model standard for the transport of dangerous goods within North America, which will be used as a guide by each of the NAFTA countries for measuring the degree of harmonization of their national regulations. The group, although it did not adopt a formal position, agreed that in the future the standard could possibly be adopted into regulation and used for governing cross border transport of dangerous goods within North America.

Rail Tank Car Requirements - Canada discussed their draft standard "Construction and Maintenance of Tank Car Tanks, Portable Tanks and Rail Cars for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Rail" (CAN/CGSB-43.147-97, supercedes 147-94) and proposed that it be adopted in the NATDGS.

The U.S. indicated that they welcomed comments on this topic and supported the idea of using the Canadian standard as a basis for the rail tank car requirements in the NATDGS. A representative from the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) informed the group that the Canadian CGSB standard is almost identical to the U.S. regulations for rail tank cars. However, he agreed that there were some points which need to be addressed concerning pressure relief devices and testing provisions incorporating non-destructive testing and indicated that he would provide comments in this regard to the group. The group considered whether the Canadian CGSB standard was sufficient to convey rail tank car requirements in the NATDGS or whether additional requirements would be necessary to establish a complete set of rail requirements, including design and construction, maintenance, and use of tank cars. The FRA representative stated that it would be possible to include provisions from the Tank Car Manual in the NATDGS. Canada agreed this would be possible and stated that the objective would be to establish a complete set of requirements which could reference detailed requirements in other technical standards. Canada also indicated that it is necessary to determine who would administer and update the rail tank car requirements in the NATDGS. Mexico stated that the Canadian CGSB standard could be used as a basis for incorporating the rail requirements in the NATDGS and that they would consider using the CGSB standard as a basis for their national regulations.

The group agreed to use the CGSB standard as a basis for incorporating rail requirements into the NATDGS. The group also agreed that the rail experts should determine the requirements that would need to be incorporated into the CGSB document to form a complete set of rail requirements, including design and construction, maintenance, and use of tank cars. FRA agreed to provide this to Group 5 based on the work of his task force. FRA proposed a meeting to be held in Mexico to further the work in developing the rail car requirements. Mexico agreed and clarified that another directorate (SCT-4) is responsible for rail regulations and that it would be important to establish a direct connection with them to receive pertinent documents and future work plans from the U.S. and Canada.

FRA volunteered to provide a summary of all the work that has been done so far with respect to rail car requirements. This offer was gratefully accepted by the group and it was agreed that the summary could be annexed to the minutes of the meeting.

Cargo Tank Requirements - The work done by the U.S. to compare the cargo tank vehicle requirements of the U.S. and Canada was distributed to the group for review. Mexico commented that they would participate in the process of developing cargo tank vehicle requirements for the NATDGS and provided drafts of their recent NOMs regarding cargo tanks MC/TC 331 and MC/TC 338. Canada agreed to review the comparison and provide comments by the end of the calendar year.

North American Exceptions (Differences from UN Model Regulation) - The group agreed to continue insofar as possible to update their respective national regulations consistent with the UN Recommendations. It was noted, however, that in certain cases it may be beneficial for safety and transportation effectiveness to not adopt certain provisions of the UN Recommendations. The U.S. stated that they have been working with industry to identify possible areas which would need to be addressed which are not consistent with the UN Recommendations. The U.S. suggested that Canada and Mexico identify similar areas of concern. The U.S. proposed that such items which were not in the UN but which would facilitate transportation within the three countries could be addressed in the NATDGS. This was agreed to by the group, provided that the exceptions were mutually acceptable.

It was decided that each country would come up with a list of grandfather provisions, exceptions, and reciprocity issues for presentation at the following working group meeting, to be discussed in 2000, and implemented in the NATDGS in 2001. It was emphasized that these would not be new items, but items which currently exist in one or more of the current national regulations.

Other Issues - The U.S. pointed out that further work was necessary in the area of harmonizing packaging requirements such as cylinder requirements. Mexico agreed. The U.S. proposed that consistency with the UN Model Regulation be maintained to the greatest extent possible. The group agreed. In this respect it was noted that industry participation would be essential. The group noted that working groups could then be formed with industry representatives from all three countries and that their work could later be agreed to for incorporation in the NATDGS.

2000 Emergency Response Guide

Michel Cloutier (TC) gave a presentation on the ERG (refer to link on the right) taking and provided a summary of changes to the guidebook including:

• inclusion of 156 new names;
• a revised user's guide;
• guidance for responding to incidents involving chemical warfare agents;
• addition of new water reactive materials in the green table with protective action distances;
• tank car and truck silhouettes;
• ADR/RID hazard codes (the U.S. indicated that the system itself is not advocated for use but is provided to assist emergency responders when the codes are provided on intermodal containers which are imported from Europe or other regions where the codes are used); and
• a new format for the TIH table - water reactives have distances listed for incidents when the material spills (1) on land and (2) on water.

Mr. Cloutier provided the URL for the Canadian web site where the 1996 NAERG may currently be downloaded (refer to the link on the right). This site also contains the CANUTEC brochure, registration information, statistics, and an interactive version of the NAERG (ERGO version 1.1). The ERGO software is CANUTEC's PC version of the 1996 North-American Emergency Response Guidebook (NAERG96). The file is 5 MB in size, is self-extracting, and is available in English, French and in Spanish versions. It will be updated to incorporate the 2000 ERG early in 2000.

Mexico indicated that they have a large number 1996 guidebooks left over from the last printing, and that they have experienced difficulty in recouping the funds they used to print the 150,000 copies in 1996. They indicated that they may not have funds to commit to the 2000 version. The U.S. stated that they would attempt to help Mexico obtain some copies of the new version in Spanish and recommended that they provide the remaining 1996 copies to training institutes such as firefighting schools since the changes between the 1996 and 2000 ERGs are not substantial.

Regulatory Updates

Mexican NOM Update:

The following NOMs will be revised:

• NOM-002 - Dangerous Goods List. This will be updated consistent with the 10th revised edition. Another agency responsible for radioactives has made some comments which may introduce some minor changes. A draft of this NOM will be provided to the U.S. and Canada for review prior to being published as an official draft standard.
  
• NOM-003 - Labels. This standard will be updated to make it more multi-modal. It will cover labels and marks used for air (e.g. magnetized material mark) and sea transport (e.g. marine pollutant mark). This will be published as an official draft standard in November 1999 with a 60 day comment period.
  
• NOM-004 - Placarding. Mexico informed the group that they are proposing to eliminate the residue placard in their revised draft of NOM-004 consistent with changes in U.S. and as proposed in Canadian regulations. Tanks containing residue would need to be placarded as though they were full. In addition the UN placard dimensions (250mmX250mm) will be proposed. This will be published as an official draft standard before the end of the calendar year with a 60 day comment period.
  
• NOM-005 - Emergency Response Information. Mexico indicated that they received comments from industry suggesting that the Mexican emergency response data sheet and the guidebook should be carried in every vehicle used to transport dangerous goods. The U.S. indicated concern over this requirement because the U.S. regulations allow the shippers to use the guidebook page, an MSDS or any document which includes the specified response information (HMR §172.602). The U.S. informed the group that they have submitted a proposal to the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts to include provisions in the UN Model Regulation specifying the emergency response information which is required to accompany shipping papers and to requiring a 24 hour emergency response telephone number on the shipping paper (see ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/1999/58 and 58/Add.1). The U.S. stated that since the documentation requirements in the UN Recommendations are currently being amended that Mexico may want to wait to consider the outcome of the UN Committee's decisions in this matter. Mexico commented that they are still in the comment period for this rulemaking, and that the concerns of the U.S. will be considered during the comment review process.

The following 4 NOMs are being drafted for publication in 2000:

• NOM-017 - Securing hazardous materials on vehicles. This NOM is in a preliminary phase of development. Canada asked for any documentation in regards to this effort and offered to provide documentation of a joint CTA/ATA effort to stipulate such requirements. The U.S. commented that it may be advisable to keep any guidelines in this respect general, so as not to restrict industry from using other adequate securing equipment and devices which are commercially available.
• NOM-068 - Physical condition of vehicles, brakes, tires, chassis. This NOM is based on Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) criteria which stipulate when vehicles should be taken out of service.
  
• NOM-057 - Cargo tank trucks (MC/TC 331). This standard is almost ready for publication as an official draft standard and will be published in 2000. It is consistent with the U.S. and Canadian MC/TC 331 standards.
  
• NOM-069 - Cargo tank trucks (MC/TC 338). This standard is almost ready for publication as an official draft standard and will be published in 2000. It is consistent with the U.S. and Canadian MC/TC 338 standards.

Mexico commented that several SCT-4 (Rail Directorate) NOMs are under development. These include:

• NOM-SCT-4-xxx - Inspection of rail cars. This standard is under development.
  
• NOM-SCT-4-069 - Compatibility and segregation for purposes of train placement (marshaling). This NOM will soon be officially published in draft form. Canada pointed out that in respect to this topic, the word segregation should not be used as it can be confused with segregation of materials in a single car. Mexico agreed.
  
• NOM-SCT-4-xxx - Emergency contingency plans for rail transport. This standard is in the early stages of development. It will be provided to Canada and the U.S. for review and comment prior to publication. Canada pointed out that they have a plan, ERAP, which is in place in Canada. Mexico indicated that they have taken recommendations from various organizations, and that the Canadian and U.S. systems in this regard have been considered.

The U.S. commented that they will continue to update the PHMSA website to include the latest NOMs. Mexico provided the U.S. with NOMs 003, 004, 005, 011, 028, and 046 on disk.

Other Regulatory Issues Concerning Mexico:

Mexico informed the group that on May 20, 1999 the Mexican Accreditation Entity (EMA) was formed. This group will be involved in the accreditation of third party UN test labs. Canada indicated that they knew of one organization which was very interested in becoming accredited. Mexico has indicated that they have received some applications for accreditation, and that the Subcommittee will be working towards evaluating and approving these applications. Mexico stated that a new company named "Normex" was started in Mexico and will be accredited in the near future for testing of all packagings.

The U.S. questioned whether Mexico had made progress in establishing a regulatory framework for issuing exemptions to the Mexican hazardous materials regulations. Mexico indicated that they had earlier indicated that the SCT does not have the power to dictate exemptions to the regulations. They indicated that there is a clause in their Law on Standardization which states that when an equivalent level of safety can be demonstrated that there is authority to allow alternative methods under exemptions. Mexico clarified that the Mexican Standardization Law requires that government/industry sub-committees be set up to write the regulations and review applications for exemptions. These sub-committees are authorized to decide whether or not a request for an exemption is justified, and would have to convene to determine whether an application for an exemption should be approved.

The US asked Mexico if they would reconsider Clariant's exemption request now that a formal exemption process has been established. Mexico agreed to evaluate Clariant's request for an exemption.

The U.S. asked whether drums which contain a residue when transported for the purposes of reconditioning would be regulated any differently than drums which are full. Canada noted that in their regulations, they would be treated identically, as safety implications warrant such treatment. The example was given of a drum containing a residue of a highly volatile flammable liquid which could generate gases that could ignite and cause an explosion. Mexico indicated that in their regulations any packaging with a residue must also comply with the regulations as though the packaging were full (Article 28 of the Reglamento para el Transporte Terrestre de Materiales Peligrosos).

Mexico indicated that presently they are collecting information on shippers and carriers which offer chemical precursors for transport. These carriers, according to the law (Federal Law for the Control of Chemical Precursors, Chemicals Essential for the Manufacture of Drugs) published final April 27, 1998, are required to register with SCT. Mexico provided a copy of the Law which applies to the import, export, transport, and distribution of chemical precursors published by the Mexican Secretary of Health. This law is designed to create a database of companies which carry these chemicals, and to monitor the amounts they transport to assist the government in tracking the flow and use of the precursors. SCT registers these carriers and the Mexico's Secretary of Health registers the shippers.

The U.S. questioned the applicability of theses requirements to U.S. carriers. Mexico clarified that US and Canadian shippers and carriers are subject to this law. However, when the company owns the product and is transporting it to themselves, they are not required to register with SCT, but are required to register with the Secretary of Health.

Mexico stated that they have published a regulation concerning hazardous materials training (consisting of nine training modules) for drivers of private or public vehicles. A copy of this regulation was provided to Canada and the U.S.

Canadian Regulatory Update:

Clear Language Regulations:

Canada updated the group concerning their clear language regulations. This is a complete redraft of their regulations and is multi modal in scope. For international shipments, shippers would be required to comply with the international regulations. For domestic shipments, shippers would be required to comply with the TDG regulations. Canada indicated that they expect to receive many comments by the end of the November 7, 1999 comment period. The comments received will be evaluated and the final version could take anywhere from several months to two years for publication. One of the features of this proposed regulation are proposed "low threat consignments" provisions. The limited quantity limits would be raised in some cases. Canada has caught some mistakes in the development of these limits, such as limited quantity provisions for explosives. The U.S. encouraged Canada to resolve the issue of low-threat consignments through the UN. Canada indicated that they have submitted a paper to the UN jointly with Australia concerning this issue which will be considered at the upcoming session. Canada also stated that the segregation rules in place for marine shipments under the IMDG Code are being considered for application to freight containers.

The U.S. indicated that based on a preliminary review of the text they found it to be more easily understandable and the layout to be user friendly. The US stated that the Clear Language Regulations however, have gone beyond the scope of simple clear language and in some cases have introduced significant regulatory amendments which deviate from the requirements in the UN Recommendations and which may impact seamless transportation within North America. The US indicated that they would provide written comments to Transport Canada in this regard.

The U.S. questioned the expanded application of Emergency Response Action Plan (ERAP) provisions. Canada commented that these provisions would only apply to Canadian shippers. The definition of consignor in Canada is constructed so that a Canadian party is always defined as the consignor even under import situations. The legal responsibility for providing ERAPs would always reside with the Canadian party, however the authority to implement the ERAP requirements could be passed to another party. Canada confirmed that retro-reflective placarding is currently required under the Clear Language Regulations for shipments requiring ERAPs. Canada indicated that they had proposed that this requirement be eliminated but that negative response from the fire-fighting community had prevented this earlier in the rulemaking process. However, the issue is still subject to comments.

Cargo Tank Standard:

Canada is reviewing B-620's provisions for flammable liquids with respect to their transport in tanks. Canada indicated that recent fatal incidents had underscored the need for a close look at these requirements.

Biomedical Waste Issues:

Canada expects that in the future biomedical waste issues will be addressed, and encouraged Mexico to identify similar issues.

U.S. Regulatory Update:

The U.S. updated the group on HM-215C and recently initiated work on HM-215D. These rulemakings amend the U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations to maintain alignment with corresponding provisions of international standards.

The U.S. updated the group on HM-226 including progress with medical waste consignments. The U.S. agreed to provide Mexico with a copy of HM-226.

The U.S. updated the group on HM-220. The U.S. explained that some aspects of this proposed rulemaking were not well received by industry. The U.S. indicated that the ongoing work at the UN will address international harmonization of cylinder requirements. The U.S. stated that they are working with the gas industry in this process. Manufacturers of cylinders in all three countries are members of the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) which has been granted observer status at the UN.

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
LAND TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE
WORKING GROUP 4
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS GROUP
MEXICO CITY, MEXICO
APRIL 9-11, 1997

Minutes of Meeting Introduction

Working Group 4 (WG 4) continued its efforts to make compatible the hazardous materials regulations of the three NAFTA countries on the basis of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods with a project completion date of the year 2000.

Regulatory Updates

Mexico:

The Mexican Regulation on the Land Transportation of Hazardous Materials and Wastes which was published on April 7, 1993, is under review by SCT. SCT wants to introduce amendments to update the Regulation with respect to:

• emergency information
• certification of packagings
• permits including emergency permits/exemptions
• dealing with impounded vehicles which are in violation - (e.g., if they are leaking they don’t want to detain them)
• procedures for handling incidents and emergencies and involvement by federal highway authorities
• training of employees including packaging manufacturers. Currently the SCT Regulation requires the certification of training programs SCT will consider eliminating this requirement.

SCT has issued 20 official standards to date. These are consistent with the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (8th revised edition) (see SCT list annexed to this report).

According to SCT, all of these standards are being enforced at this time. SCT has also published 3 draft standards which are in the public consultation process. These standards are as follows:

NOM-020 Cargo Tank Truck Construction Requirements
NOM-032 Portable Tank for Classes 3-9
NOM-051 Infectious Substances

SCT outlined its standards development program for 1997 as follows:

The following standards will be updated according to the UN Recommendations (ninth edition).

NOM-003, Labeling Requirements
NOM-004, Placarding Requirements
NOM-005, Emergency Response Information
NOM-011, Limited Quantity Provisions
NOM-023, Technical Information Data Plate Requirements

NOM-003 and NOM-004 will be revised consistent with previous comments provided by the U.S. and Canada.

NOM-005 will be revised on the basis of U.S. comments provided at earlier meetings relating to the necessity to carry the NAERG in transport units. The U.S. had commented that a guide page accompanying a shipment should be sufficient to fulfill emergency response information requirements.

NOM-011 is to be revised to eliminate the UN package testing requirements for limited quantity packagings.

NOM-023 is to be incorporated into NOM-013 to include all data requirements that need to be marked on an IBC, portable tank, rail tank car or transport vehicle in a single standard including capacities, weights and dimensions.

NOM-020 - SCT has started the work on 331 and 338 cargo tank truck requirements on the basis of the U.S. requirements. A draft may be available later this year. The requirements will be based on Parts 173 and 178 of the HMR.

SCT indicated that 3 new standards will be worked on in 1997 including:

NOM-037 - Additional specifications for vehicles.

NOM-046 - Construction of portable tanks for non-refrigerated liquefied gases.

NOM-017 - Loading, distribution and securement of hazardous materials on vehicles.

SCT indicated that work on developing DOT Specification 400 series cargo tank truck requirements may be ready by the end of 1998 at the earliest. In the U.S., 400 series requirements have been in force from August 1996. No new 300 series cargo tank trucks can be constructed. Transport Canada indicated that they plan to start enforcing the 400 series requirements starting in the Fall of 1997.

SCT indicated that they intend to update NOM-002, Hazardous Materials List in accordance with the 9th and tenth revised editions of the UN Recommendations, but that this work will most likely commence in 1998. The US recommended that SCT incorporate a provision in their regulation allowing the most current UN proper shipping names to be used based on the latest version of the UN Recommendations so that shippers will not experience problems when using proper shipping names not in NOM-002. SCT agreed to consider this recommendations.

Canada:

Canada provided an overview of the following three newly revised Canadian standards:

CSA - B620 - Construction of TC-400 series cargo tank trucks, TC331 and 338 series cargo tank trucks and specification 51 & 60 portable tanks.

CSA - B621 Selection and use for Classes 3-9 (This is based on U.S. bulk packaging assignments in HMR;172.101)

CSA-B622 Selection and use for liquefied gases (This is based on U.S. bulk packaging assignments in HMR;172.101)

The group agreed to develop a North American Hazardous Materials Table with provisions for bulk and non-bulk packaging assignments including assignments indicating the types of cargo tanks and rail cars permitted for specific materials for the North American Dangerous Goods Standard. The Group agreed that the details and scheduling for completing this work should be discussed during the general discussion concerning the development of the North American Dangerous Goods Standard.

United States of America:

The U.S. representative provided a summary of the following rulemakings:

HM-200, INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL- This rulemaking extends the applicability of the HMR to cover all intrastate transportation of hazardous materials. It requires that all intrastate shippers and carriers comply with the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) with certain exceptions. This action is necessary to comply with amendments to the Federal hazardous materials transportation law mandating that DOT regulate the transportation of hazardous materials in intrastate commerce. The intended effect of this rule is to raise the level of safety in the transportation of hazardous materials by applying a uniform system of safety regulations to all hazardous materials transported in commerce throughout the United States.

HM-201, TRAIN PLACEMENT- This rule addressed adoption of train placement requirements for trains without cabooses. The provisions concerning authorization to use non-destructive test methods other than hydrostatic tests was also addressed. SCT expressed interest in these provisions and the group indicated that this is something that should be considered in the North American Dangerous Goods Transportation Standard.

HM-206, HM IDENTIFICATION- This final rule amends the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to better identify hazardous materials in transportation. Changes include adding a new ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD'' (PIH) label and placard to enhance the ready identification of materials which are poisonous if inhaled, lowering the quantity for specific hazard class placarding from 2,268 kilograms (5,000 pounds) to 1,000 kilograms (2,205 pounds) of one class or division of material loaded on a transport vehicle, expanding requirements for transport vehicles and freight containers that have been fumigated, and other enhancements to the hazard communication system. Improved identification of, and information about, hazardous materials in transportation assists emergency response personnel in responding to and mitigating the effects of incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials, and improves safety to transportation workers and the public.

HM-207A, SHIPPING PAPER RETENTION- This rulemaking implements requirements of the U.S. Hazardous Materials Law, Sec. 115 requiring shippers and carriers to retain shipping papers for 1 year after termination of transportation.

HM-207C, EXEMPTION, APPROVAL, REGISTRATION AND REPORTING PROCEDURES; MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS- In response to a petition for reconsideration, this final rule deletes a requirement that, when the provisions of an exemption require that a copy be in a carrier's possession during transportation, the carrier must maintain a copy of the exemption in the same manner as required for shipping papers. This amendment will allow the carrier to use any appropriate method for making the exemption available, unless otherwise specified by the provisions of the exemption.

HM-215B, HARMONIZATION WITH UN RECOMMENDATION, ICAO TECHNICAL INSTRUCTIONS, AND IM GOODS CODE- This rule incorporates changes to the HMR based on the ninth revised edition of the UN Recommendations, IMO, and ICAO.

HM-216, TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BY RAIL- On June 5, 1996, PHMSA published a final rule which amended the Hazardous Materials Regulations to incorporate a number of changes to rail requirements based on rulemaking petitions from industry and PHMSA initiatives. The intended effect of the June 5, 1996 rule is to improve safety and reduce costs to offerors and transporters of hazardous materials. This final rule corrects errors in that final rule and responds to petitions for reconsideration.

HM-217-LABELING OF DIVISION 6.1, PG III- This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will solicit comments on revising Division 6.1 labeling requirements consistent with international requirements.

HM-224-PROHIBITION OF OXYGEN GENERATORS AS CARGO ON PASSENGER AIRCRAFT- PHMSA is prohibiting the transportation of oxygen generators as cargo on board passenger-carrying aircraft. This rule applies to both foreign and domestic passenger-carrying aircraft entering, leaving or operating in the United States, and to any person offering an oxygen generator for transportation on any passenger-carrying aircraft. The final rule applies to foreign and domestic transportation in the U.S.

Presentation by the National Commission for Security and Safety under Secretary of Energy -Radioactive Material Regulations in Mexico

A representative from the Mexican Department of Energy's Radiological Security Management Directorate (Directorate de Gerencia de Seguridad Radiológica) provided an overview of the regulatory system for the transport of radioactive materials within Mexico. He explained the responsibilities of his office which include issuing licenses and permits for the handling and transport of radioactive materials and the development of safety standards. He explained the existing laws and regulations currently in place. These include the Nuclear Materials Law and the General Regulation of Radiological Security. He explained that currently transportation rules/standards do not exist. However the Department of Energy has a number of proposed standards based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Safety Series 6 which will be officially published and placed in the public consultation process in the near future. He indicated that in practice the IAEA requirements are being applied in Mexico and that there are relatively few shipments of Class 7 materials in Mexico.

Group 4 discussed the requirements for acquiring a license to handle and transport radioactive materials in Mexico. Mexico has specific controls in place to regulate who can acquire a license to transport radioactive materials. The Radiological Security Management Directorate's Evaluation and Licensing Department has an established licensing process. It is also responsible for conducting on-site inspections and issuing penalties/sanctions for non-compliance.

Mexican Air Transport Requirements

A representative of SCT's Civil Aeronautics Directorate provided an overview of the regulatory system for the transport of hazardous materials by air. He explained the responsibilities of his office which include the development of safety standards. He explained that although Mexico has existing laws and regulations currently in place (Ley de Aviation Civil and Reglamento de la Ley de Aviation Civil (Proyecto)) there are no standards to cover hazardous materials transport by air and there is no official legal framework authorizing use of the ICAO TI. Mexico is signatory to the Chicago Convention. The U.S. and Canadian representatives recommended adopting the ICAO TI by reference into the existing laws but it was explained that the general law on implementing regulations precluded incorporating publications or standards not developed by the Mexican government. Mexico currently uses and recognizes Annex 18 and the ICAO TI defacto as the regulation for transporting hazardous materials by air. The Civil Aeronautics Directorate is in the process of developing Official Mexican Standards consistent with the ICAO TI. The new NOMs will apply to international and domestic transport. A list of the proposed draft standards is annexed to this report. The U.S. recommended not repeating requirements in NOMs for land transportation and air transport and to integrate the NOMs as far as practical to avoid overlapping and conflicting requirements. Canada suggested SCT take into account the lessons learned by Canada and U.S. that separate regulations developed by each modal authority can cause many problems. SCT agreed to provide copies of the Ley de Aviacon Civil.

Contingencies and Response to Emergency Situations

A representative of Mexico's Civil Protection Agency provided an overview of activities within Mexico to enhance emergency response capabilities. He explained Mexico's Integral Plan for Border Area Response (Plan Integral Ambieal Fronterizo XXI 1995-2000) which was established to enhance emergency response capabilities and awareness in the U.S./Mexico border areas. Mexico's ultimate goal is increase its capacity to respond to emergencies including hazardous materials spills on the local, state and federal levels by optimizing resources and capabilities. It was explained that a number of emergency practice drills have been conducted and are planned throughout the country. Some of these are being coordinated through the U.S./Mexico Joint Response Team (JRT). He explained Mexico's participation in the JRTs and the Cross-Border Mobilization Workgroup which was established in July 1996 in response to a suggestion offered at the March 1996 U.S./Mexico JRT meeting when it was agreed that certain issues could be more appropriately handled at the local level. The U.S. informed the Group that a report outlining transborder response enhancement recommendations will be presented at the upcoming JRT meeting in Veracruz, Mexico, May 14-15, 1997 based on five recent meetings of local hazardous materials officials along the border. It was also noted that other activities of the U.S./Mexico JRT include translating CAMEO into Spanish and establishing a sister city training and assistance program.

Mexico indicated the progress in establishing coordinated local plans in the 14 sister cities along the border. He emphasized a lack of training for response personnel within Mexico as the biggest problem to be addressed. Frequent local working group meetings are ongoing in order to enhance communication across the border, rapid movement of equipment during emergencies, occupational and immigration issues as well as developing a rapid and reliable system of notification (SCT has Agreement with Civil Protection, Secretaria de Gubernatione to report all accidents). Mexico is in the process of establishing centers to handle emergencies including a national response center. Mexico plans to set up a fund to cover costs associated with training, personnel, operations, equipment.

Comments Regarding the North American Emergency Response Guide

The Group agreed that the next edition of the NAERG should be published in the Fall of 1999 or early 2000. They agreed to meet in January 1998 to discuss updating the NAERG.

Mexico updated the group on its progress in distributing the NAERG in Mexico as follows:

The NAERG was distributed to emergency agencies and responders e.g., fireman, red cross, etc. 8,000 sold to industry , another 5,000 to Civil Protection, 3,000 to Central and South American counties (although a number of recent requests are being processed). SCT indicated that demand for the Spanish edition of the NAERG is increasing.

Certification of packagings

A representative from SECOFI/Mexican Secretary of Commerce provided an overview of Mexico's progress in establishing a national system for certification of packagings. SECOFI has regulatory authority over package certification and accreditation of laboratories within Mexico. The U.S. explained that under the U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations shippers and packaging manufacturers are authorized to self-certify their packagings. It was further explained that a system of third party certification laboratories and procedures for registering and approving the laboratories was established in the U.S. and Canada. Canada explained that its system is somewhat different since approved packaging designs must be registered with Transport Canada in order for them to be recognized and that packaging manufacturers must have a quality assurance (Q.A.) program which is recognized by the Q.A. body in Canada. Canada reviews the test report and issues on approval number for each design type approved. The Canadian representative explained that when a company places a UN package marking on the package, it certifies that it meets UN requirements. It is subject to enforcement action if it is found the package does not comply. The SECOFI representative explained in Mexico, a third party certification process is used and each laboratory would have to be an accredited nationally by SECOFI under Mexico's National System of Accrediting Test Labs. He indicated that the process of applying the “MEX” mark to UN packagings had not yet been approved and that upon the urging of SCT this process is being expedited. It is expected that the process will be approved by the end of 1997. In realizing that this issue has been ongoing for over two years without resolution, SCT committed to work with SECOFI to bring the issue of package certification to a conclusion in an expeditious manner.

As a side issue SECOFI informed the group of its Internet homepage which identifies all official Mexican Laws, Regulations and Standards. Refer to the link to the right.

Mexican Maritime Transport Requirements

A SCT maritime representative explained Mexico's Maritime regulations and provided a history of its participation at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its ratification of SOLAS (Mexico has been a signatory since 1971) and MARPOL (MARPOL Annex 1-1952, Annex 2-1973, Annex 3- Not signed). He explained that although Mexico has existing laws and regulations currently in place covering sea transport there are no standards to cover hazardous materials transport by sea and there is no official legal framework authorizing the use of the IMDG Code. Nevertheless, Mexico in practice uses the IMDG Code as a basis for transporting hazardous materials by sea. Draft standards are currently being developed to cover sea transport on the basis of the IMDG Code. A listing of draft NOMs is provided as an attachment to this report.

Compressed Gas Cylinders

The group next discussed harmonization of compressed gas cylinder requirements within North America. Canada and the U.S explained that their requirements were already harmonized to a great extent and that they have formed a working group to review the standards of both countries in an effort to enhance harmonization. Canada asked if Mexico was in the position to adopt standards common to the U.S. and Canada in order to develop mutual recognition of cylinders throughout North America. At this point the representative from the Mexican Department of Energy (Direcion General de Gas Secretaria de Energia) which has responsibility over compressed gas cylinder regulations provided an overview of the standards currently in place in Mexico. Currently Mexico only has a standard (NOM-18) covering cylinders for liquified petroleum (LP) gas under 45kg capacity. Mexico plans to develop additional standards but this is not progressing very expeditiously since there is discussion going on relative to which agency should be responsible for compressed gas cylinders. There has been no decision within the Federal government on who will develop standards for portable cylinders. The Direccion General de Gas was recently recorganized and there has been no decision by the Secretary of Energy on whether they will continue to regulate and develop standards for compressed gas cylinders. Mexico is interested in working on harmonizing cylinder requirements once these issues are resolved. The U.S. explained that there are 4 manufacturers of DOT Specification cylinders in Mexico which have been certified by the U.S. DOT.

Future Work Program

The following is a work program agreed to by Group 4:

Updating each countries dangerous goods/hazmat lists in accordance with the UN Recommendations - The U.S. proposed that each of the countries should attempt to update their lists consistent with the UN recommendations 2 years following the publication as is done in the ICAO TI and IMDG Code. The U.S. suggested that a statement could be added in the Mexican Reglamento allowing use of new shipping names published in the latest edition of the UN Recommendations. This suggestion will be considered by the Mexican Land Transport Sub-Committee.

How to deal with differences in regulations - Canada proposed that the Group will have to keep working at the differences. The U.S. stated that Mexico is in the best situation because their regulations are new and are purely based on the UN Recommendations. It was decided that the most effective means of reducing the regulatory differences would be to proceed with the North American Dangerous Goods Transportation Standard and then identify the exceptions which need to be recognized in each country.

New SCT Standards and further work to enhance hazardous materials safety within Mexico- SCT is planning development and issuance of several new and revised standards as well as amendments to the Hazardous Materials Land Transportation Reglamento. Senior Arrieta indicated that SCT will focus on several key areas:

1. technical areas including hazardous materials requirements and transport vehicle requirements (e.g. weights and dimensions, safety assessment program)
2. standards development to implement the safety requirements
3. Training of inspectors, carriers and shippers

He explained that the legal areas and technical areas have been more closely aligned within SCT. SCT is attempting to identify the advantages of safety measures with an emphasis on training to establish a culture based on safety.

Mexico committed to better integration of efforts amongst various government agencies.

North American Dangerous Goods Transportation Standard- Group 4 discussed Mexico’s legal problem with adopting a standard not developed by a Mexican government agency into a Reglamento or Official Mexican Standard. The U.S. and Canada explained that they need a publicly available document in order to be able to incorporate it into regulation. This issue will need to be further discussed at future meetings and seems to be the only barrier to adopting a North American Dangerous Goods Transportation Standard into the regulations of the three NAFTA countries. The group confirmed its intention of producing a North American Code that would ultimately govern the transborder transport of hazardous materials but agreed that the completion and implementation of the Code would likely be after the year 2000 deadline of NAFTA.

Participation at the UN Committee and Sub-Committee of Experts (UN COE and SCOE) meetings- The group agreed that all 3 countries should do everything in their power to attend in order to provide the proper balance of participation and to ensure North American interests are addressed. The group also considered issues currently before the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. The Group agreed that as the NAFTA partners proceed to tie their regulations closer together it will become even more important to coordinate positions at the UN and to formulate North American positions on key issues. SCT informed the Group that it will continue participation on the COE and SCOE. SCT has not yet decided who will be the official representative(s) to the 13th session of the SCOE in July 1997. The U.S. agreed to forward positions on UN issues to Canada/Mexico and suggested improved communication and collaboration on formulating North American positions at the UN Committee and Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.