Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation on the proposed Brexit amendments to the CDG 2018 regulations

Updated 10 January 2019

The Department for Transport’s consultation on its proposed Brexit SI for the carriage of dangerous goods, reference number DfT-2018-14, closed on 6 September 2018.

Responses

The department received 3 responses answering the formal consultation questions, and 4 additional responses. Those that responded were supportive of the SI and the consultation. In addition to the responses to the main questions, 3 questions were posed by stakeholders which we have provided government responses to.

Types of organisations/individuals that responded to the consultation

1) Which best describes your organisation’s role?

• government department
• other government organization
• local authority association
• small firm / self-employed association
• employer organisation / trade association - x1
• trade union
• training provider
• consultancy - x1
• private company - x1
• tunnel manager
• other

2) If you are an employer, how many employees are there in your organisation? If you are a trade association, how many companies do you represent?

• 0-50 - x1
• 51-200 - x1
• more than 200 - x1

3) Is your organisation involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by road or rail?

• road - x1
• rail
• both - x2

4) Is your organisation involved in the domestic or international carriage of dangerous goods?

• domestic - x1
• international
• both - x2

The responses to the questions asked in the consultation

Q.1 Do any of the proposed changes create any significant benefits or dis-benefits to your industry?

• Yes
• No - x2
• Don’t Know - x1

Q.2 This consultation document describes and explains the different policy issues involved well / adequately / badly?

• Well - x1
• Adequately - x2
• Badly

Q.3 Is there anything you particularly liked or disliked about this consultation?

• Yes - x1
• No - x2
• Don’t Know

Q.4 What further changes to ADR and RID would you like to see the government propose or support in the future?

• A major road haulage trade association – “Less superfluous changes.”

• A large private company – “Greater use of authorisations/Special Arrangements to permit alternative solutions to project challenges.”

Q.5 Would you welcome additional guidance or specific aspects of either of the regulations, RID or ADR?

• Yes - x3
• No
• Don’t Know

Additional questions and government responses

Q.1 An industry respondent asked about transportable pressure equipment (TPE) and how the current EU set system (including the use of the Pi-mark to show compliance) for the approval of new TPE and inspection of in service TPE will be handled, because of Brexit particularly if there is a no deal situation.

Government response

In the event of a deal with the EU, it is expected that there will be no change for the duration of the transitional period.

In the event of no deal, once the UK leaves the EU, the EU Directive that applies the EU system will no longer be fully operable in the UK. Whilst Great Britain will recognise the Pi-mark, GB inspection bodies will not be able to undertake certification or inspection of the Pi-mark (as NOBOs) unless they are registered in an EU Member State. They could inspect TPE including the UN marked but will not be able to offer the additional level of compliance required for the EU market. The expectation is that the larger inspection bodies will register to operate with other EU Member States as NOBOs, and the smaller inspection bodies will register with these and contract for work through them.

The GB NOBOs will automatically become GB Appointed Bodies. They will be given the opportunity to decide if they wish to continue to operate as a GB Appointed Body, and continue to certify and inspect GB only TPE. The Government will also consider whether it is necessary to introduce a UK mark for such TPE, and will discuss this with UK industry.

Q.2 An industry respondent asked what further work will be done to revise and reintroduce Approved Tank Requirements.

Government response

We have separately noted this and are dealing with the respondent’s request for further work in this area. Re-establishing the link to the VOC Directive (94/63/EC), which is being achieved by the Statutory Instrument from the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) will deliver this.

Q.3 A dangerous goods consultancy business asked why the reference to the Approved Tank Requirements concerning the provisions for vapour recovery systems of mobile containers carrying petrol are contained in the “Radioactive Substances, Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Transportable Pressure Equipment (Amendment) Regulations 2018” being drafted by the BEIS? Why can’t this reference be made via an amendment to “The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Transportable Pressure Equipment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018” (CDG 2018) or The Petroleum (Consolidation) Regulations 2014?

Government response

This is being done separately, as part of a general update to the Carriage of Dangerous Goods regulations and as a result has been included with those in the SI being drafted by BEIS. This is not being done by the CDG 2018 amendment because that deals solely with amendments that are necessary because of Brexit. Our approach has been to avoid the potential for confusion caused by combining Brexit provisions and general updates in the same regulations. Also, because our Brexit regulations and the BEIS regulations are likely to be made in quick succession it did not make sense to add a third discrete Statutory Instrument (renewing the VOC link) into that period in addition to these two.