Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals

Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods

Forty-first session

Geneva, 25 June – 04 July 2012

Item 8 of the provisional agenda

Global harmonization of transport of dangerous goods regulations
with the Model Regulations

               Harmonization with the United Nations Model Regulations

                   Transmitted by the expert from Switzerland[1]

1.         At its fortieth session, the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods was informed in informal document INF.40 of the decisions taken by the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP), including one in paragraph 5 not to adopt the provisions of chapter 3.4 for 1.4S articles. The reason given was that, in the case of air transport, there was no difference between the requirements for limited quantity packages and those for transport not covered by chapter 3.4.

2.         This decision is likely to cause problems for consignments in a transport chain that includes land transport over a section of the journey. Such consignments will have danger labels affixed to their packaging, and will be accompanied by a Dangerous Goods Declaration, as with any transport of dangerous goods to which the exemptions under chapter 3.4 are not applied. Thus they will not be able to benefit from the simplifications specified in chapter 3.4 on the land sections of the journey and will hence be subject to all the provisions of RID-ADR-ADN. The transport document will also have to include the information necessary for land transport (e.g., tunnel restriction codes, driver’s instructions, driver’s training, etc.).

3.         Paragraph 5 of informal document INF.40 also states that packaging marked in accordance with chapter 3.4 for other forms of transport will be accepted for air transport, without any additional procedure. However, in contrast to the requirements for air transport, chapter 3.4 contains no requirement that danger labels be affixed together with the marking specified in 3.4.7; hence, a package that has only the marking specified in 3.4.7 under the provisions of chapter 3.4 of RID-ADR-ADN would not comply automatically with the labelling requirements for air transport. It would not have the danger labels. It must therefore have both the marking specified in 3.4.7 and the danger labels. Furthermore, the marking specified in 3.4.8 would not be accepted for air transport of 1.4S articles, so that a consignor who wished to send a consignment under the exemption in chapter 3.4 would have to use the marking specified under 3.4.7 as well as the labels and markings required under part 3, chapter 4, of the ICAO technical instructions. Now, because danger labels don't appear in the list of applicable provisions for land transports, the presence of danger labels is incompatible with an LQ marking, so that the consignment will encounter problems for land transport if it is not clearly explained in the relevant texts.

4.         The problem is that neither the consignor nor the inspecting authorities are informed of these circumstances under chapter 3.4. The simplest solution would have been for DGP to agree to the marking specified in 3.4.8 for these consignments. The UN Subcommittee should alert DGP to this matter.

5.         However, this does seem extremely complicated and should only be proposed if DGP does not reverse its decision not to apply the provisions of chapter 3.4 for 1.4S articles

(a)    To add in the list of applicable provisions for the land transport in 3.4.1 e) iii)    after 5.2.1.7 ", 5.2 for articles of Division 1.4, Compatibility group S,".

        (b)    Be specified in 3.4.8 that the marking in that section is not authorized for           1.4S articles, and

    (c)    Be specified in 3.4.7 that 1.4S articles for air transport require the marking                    specified under 3.4.7 in addition to the appropriate markings specified in            part 3, chapter 4, of the ICAO technical instructions.

6.         However, this does seem extremely complicated and should only be proposed if the DGP does not reverse its decision not to apply the provisions of chapter 3.4 for 1.4S articles.

联合国危险货物运输专家和全球化学品统一分类和标签制度专家委员会

危险货物运输专家分委员会

第四十一次会议

日内瓦, 2012年6月25日-7月4日
议程第8项

全球危险货物运输规则与规章范本的协调统一

               与联合国规章范本协调一致

                   由瑞士专家提交[2]

1.         在第40次会议上，联合国危险货物运输专家分委员会由INF.40得知ICAO 危险货物工作组（DGP）的一些决定，其中包括第5段中的3.4章规定不适用于1.4S物品的决定。给出的理由是，对于空运运输，对限制数量运输的包装要求和3.4章不适用的情况下的要求没有不同。

2.         这个决定对于在航程中包括陆运的托运可能会造成问题，因为如果3.4章的豁免条款不适用于运输中任何一个环节的话，这类托运货物就需要在包装件上黏贴危险性标签，也需要同时附有危险货物申报单。因此托运人在航程的陆运环节将不能从3.4章中的简化规定获利，而需遵守RID-ADR-AND（铁路运输-公路运输-内河运输相关规定）的所有规定。运输文件也需要包括陆运的必须信息（例如，隧道行车限制、司机注意事项，司机培训等）。

3.         非正式文件INF.40的第5段也指出，根据3.4章对按其他运输方式标记的包装将无需任何附加程序就可用于空运。然而，与空运的要求相比，3.4章没有包含任何需要在具有3.4.7规定的标记的同时粘贴危险性标签的要求；因此只根据RID-ADR-ADN（铁路运输-公路运输-内河运输相关规定）3.4章中3.4.7项规定进行标记的包装件，不能自动符合空运的标签要求。这种包装件缺少危险性标签。它必须同时有3.4.7规定的标记和危险性标签。而且空运1.4s物品时，不能接受3.4.8规定的标记，这导致原希望使用3.4章的豁免规定托运货物的托运人，不得不使用3.4.7规定的标记以及ICAO技术细则中第3部分第4章中要求的标签和标记。由于在现行的陆运相关规定目录中没有出现危险性标签，使得危险性标签的存在与有限数量标记（LQ marking）有冲突，如不能在相关文本中解释清楚，将在陆运时遇到问题。

4.         问题是，在3.4章中并没有告诉托运人和主管检查机构会遇到这些情况。最简单的解决方案就是在这种情况下，DGP同意认可托运人使用3.4.8规定的标记。联合国分委员会应该提醒DGP注意这个问题。

5.         然而，如果DGP不撤销关于3.4章的规定不适用于1.4S物品的决定，这个问题看起来确实非常复杂，针对这种情况提议如下：

(a)    在陆运相关规定目录中3.4.1 e) iii)的5.2.1.7之后中增加 “5.2  1.4项，配装组S的物品” 。    

        (b)    在3.4.8中规定，此处规定的标记不允许用于1.4S物品；和

         (c)     在3.4.7中规定，空运1.4S物品时，需要有3.4.7中规定的标记，同时还要有ICAO技术细则第3部分，第4章中规定的合适的标记。