Uncategorised
By Anthony Affissio
For anyone moving dangerous goods by air to, through or from the United States, the United States State Variations in the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations deserve close attention.
A quick review of Section 2.8.1 of the 67th Edition of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations shows how much more extensive the United States State Variations are when compared with other States. The United States variations, identified as the USG variations, begin at the bottom of page 64 with an editorial note explaining five terms used throughout the USG entries.
The first of those terms is “Hazardous Materials”. This is the term used in Title 49 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Transportation, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. In practical terms, it is the United States regulatory equivalent of “Dangerous Goods”.
USG-01 begins on page 65, and the final variation, USG-18, appears toward the end of page 71. No other State lists nearly as many variations, and no other State uses more than a single page in that section. That alone is a clear signal that transporting dangerous goods to, through or from the United States can involve additional layers of complexity that may not exist in the same way elsewhere in the world.
Two competent authorities, one regulatory environment
The complexity becomes more apparent when looking at Appendix D.1 of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, which lists the Competent Authorities for Dangerous Goods.
The United States is the only nation listed with two separate entities. The “Regulatory branch” is identified as the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, known as PHMSA. The “Enforcement branch” is identified as the Federal Aviation Administration, known as the FAA.
That distinction is important because it reflects how dangerous goods regulation is structured in the United States.
In many other States, the competent authority is the civil aviation authority. In the United States, however, the Department of Transportation, or US DOT, covers all modes of transportation. Within the US DOT, different operating administrations and bureaus have their own management structures and areas of responsibility.
As a result, authority over the Hazardous Materials Regulations sits with PHMSA, while the FAA is the civil aviation authority. They are separate administrations within the same federal department, with overlapping relevance to dangerous goods transported by air.
This creates a regulatory structure that is different from many other jurisdictions.
Why the PHMSA and FAA split matters
Each United States transportation administration has its own compliance and enforcement responsibilities within its area of responsibility under 49 CFR.
The FAA is different because it also has compliance and enforcement authority under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Aeronautics and Space, commonly associated with the Federal Aviation Regulations.
The enforcement branch listed in IATA Appendix D.1 is the FAA Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, referred to as AXH. AXH currently sits within Security and Hazardous Materials Safety, known as ASH, which is a separate line of business is a separate line of business within the FAA.
That organisational structure has its own history and has contributed to AXH not being fully incorporated into the rest of the FAA in the same way as some other functions.
For industry, the practical issue is that the United States dangerous goods framework cannot be understood only by reading the USG variations in isolation. Those variations sit within a broader regulatory environment involving PHMSA, the FAA, 49 CFR, Title 14 CFR and the way the United States Department of Transportation divides regulatory and enforcement responsibilities.
What this means for international dangerous goods movements
For shippers, freight forwarders, airlines, ground handlers and other supply chain participants, the key point is straightforward: the United States may require a more careful reading than many other jurisdictions.
The volume of USG variations is one indication. The dual competent authority structure is another. Together, they show why dangerous goods movements involving the United States can carry additional regulatory and enforcement considerations.
This does not mean the United States framework is unworkable. It means it is structurally different. Businesses moving dangerous goods to, through or from the United States should understand not only the wording of the USG variations, but also the regulatory architecture behind them.
Final reflection
The United States State Variations are not simply a longer list of local requirements. They are a window into a more complex regulatory structure.
The relationship between AXH and PHMSA, and the way those agencies influence the USG variations, is a topic worth examining in greater detail. So is the relationship between AXH and the broader FAA, particularly if recent government efficiency initiatives lead to further organisational change.
For those transporting dangerous goods to, through or from the United States, that deeper understanding may become increasingly important. The hidden depth within the USG variations can be highly relevant to compliance decisions, operational planning and the management of regulatory risk in international aviation.