IHMM Global DG Transport Compliance Matrix (2025–2026)
IHMM Certificant Compliance Checklist
Week of March 31 – April 6, 2026
United States
Regulatory developments
The most concrete U.S. development remains PHMSA’s active HM-215R harmonization NPRM, which would update the Hazardous Materials Regulations to align with newer international standards on proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air quantity limits, and vessel stowage. PHMSA’s proposal expressly points to updated ICAO Technical Instructions, IMDG Amendment 42-24, Transport Canada’s 2023 TDG Regulations, and the 23rd revised UN Model Regulations as reference points. That remains the principal federal rulemaking signal for hazardous-materials transport this week.
PHMSA’s March 18 special-permit notices also remain important during this period because they show where the agency is allowing operational flexibility before broader rulemaking catches up. PHMSA published a notice of new special-permit applications and a separate notice of actions on special permits, with comments due April 17, 2026.
Important news
The most legally relevant U.S. news item this week is not a federal safety rule but a state-law conflict with hazardous-materials implications: a railroad industry group sued to block a New Jersey law that, among other things, would require two-person crews on trains carrying hazardous materials and create a state-administered wayside-detector program. That litigation matters because it shows continued pressure at the state level to regulate hazmat-rail safety beyond federal minimums.
Canada
Regulatory developments
Canada did not publish a major new Transportation of Dangerous Goods rule during this specific week, but Transport Canada’s 2026–2027 Departmental Plan, issued in mid-March and still the governing current policy signal, is highly relevant. It states that Canada will keep the TDG Regulations aligned with international requirements, add new or updated containment standards, work with international fora to harmonize standards, and focus technical research on battery and energy storage technologies, dangerous goods in Canada’s energy corridors, new container/testing methods, and emergency response planning.
Transport Canada’s current Forward Regulatory Plan also confirms planned TDG amendments covering dangerous-goods marks, classification information, shipping names, packing requirements, special provisions, and clearer air-transport rules tailored to Canada’s needs, including remote-location issues.
A smaller but still practical compliance development is Transport Canada’s updated page on laboratories providing analysis or classification services, reminding consignors that they remain responsible for classifying the dangerous goods they ship and pointing them to self-declared Canadian labs that support that work.
Important news
No major Canada-specific dangerous-goods transportation incident or enforcement story surfaced in widely reported sources during this week. The Canadian story is instead one of regulatory modernization and international alignment, especially around batteries, containment standards, and risk-based oversight.
Mexico
Regulatory developments
Mexico’s dangerous-goods legal landscape continues to be shaped by its consultation on PROY-NOM-011-SICT2/2025 on limited-quantity hazardous goods, and by federal support measures for the heavy-vehicle sector. Reuters reported on March 26 that Mexico announced measures to support and modernize its motor transport industry, especially heavy vehicles. While that measure is not a DG rule on its face, it matters because dangerous-goods carriage on federal roads depends heavily on the condition, availability, and regulatory treatment of heavy equipment.
Important news
The most significant Mexico-region hazardous-cargo story this period is energy transport rather than highway tankers: President Sheinbaum publicly defended Mexico’s right to send fuel to Cuba, whether for humanitarian or commercial reasons. That matters in the dangerous-goods context because government-backed cross-border petroleum movements are now entangled with sanctions, maritime carriage, and cargo-routing risk.
Europe
Regulatory developments
Europe’s baseline remains ADR 2025 under UNECE auspices, but the main development in this period was the immediate aftermath of the RID/ADR/ADN Joint Meeting in Bern, which took place March 24–27. UNECE and OTIF materials confirm that the Joint Meeting is the core forum for multimodal coordination among rail, road, and inland-waterway dangerous-goods rules, and that current workstreams include tank issues, standards, and amendment proposals feeding the next cycle. OTIF expressly describes the Joint Meeting as the mechanism that helps ensure simple multimodal transport for dangerous goods across rail, road, and inland waterways.
The tanks workstream remained active after Bern, with UNECE publishing an informal document describing the Working Group on Tanks’ meetings in January and again in Bern on March 23–25, 2026. That is important because tank simplification, inspections, and intermodal continuity remain central legal issues for the next RID/ADR/ADN cycle.
Important news
The week’s biggest Europe-region hazardous-cargo story was maritime and environmental rather than road-based ADR enforcement. Reuters reported on April 2 that the damaged Russian LNG tanker Arctic Metagaz broke loose from tow off Libya during a storm, prompting Libya’s Ports and Maritime Transport Authority to warn ships to stay at least 10 nautical miles away. Reuters also reported that nine southern EU states had already warned the European Commission that the vessel posed an “imminent and serious” ecological risk. For European regulators and operators, this is a live example of how hazardous-cargo shipping incidents rapidly become cross-border public-safety and environmental-law matters.
Asia
Regulatory developments
Asia did not produce a major fresh dangerous-goods statute during this week, but the most consequential operational development was China’s move to extend its ban on refined fuel exports into April, with only small exemptions possible. That is not a classic dangerous-goods transport rule, but it directly affects the movement of hazardous petroleum cargoes, tanker allocation, and regional supply-chain planning.
More broadly, Asia remains in a period where carrier acceptance rules and international codes—especially IMDG 42-24 and ICAO/IATA battery controls—continue to set the real compliance floor for hazardous cargo, even where no new domestic statute is issued in a given week. PHMSA’s harmonization proposal is itself a sign of that international pull, since it explicitly seeks alignment with ICAO, IMDG, and UN standards used heavily in Asia-facing trade.
Important news
The most important Asia-region news story was the continuing disruption to hazardous-energy shipping caused by Middle East conflict. Reuters reported both that China was poised to extend its refined-fuel export ban and, separately, that Gulf tanker disruptions were tightening vessel availability and redirecting flows. That combination matters for Asian importers and carriers of LNG, crude, fuels, and chemicals because route risk and tanker scarcity now affect hazardous-cargo transport as much as classification and packaging rules do.
Apr 01, 2026 South Korea Drafts Revision to Regulation on Business Operation and Management of Hazardous Chemicals
Mar 31, 2026 South Korea Proposes Handling Limits for 73 Newly Designated Hazardous Substances
Mar 30, 2026 South Korea Designates 74 New Hazardous Substances
Mar 30, 2026 South Korea Amends FCM Standards: Stricter PVC Rules and Expansion of Recycled Polypropylene
Mar 26, 2026 South Korea Proposes Disclosure of 136 Existing Chemicals
Mar 23, 2026 South Korea to Include Methoxychlor, DP, and UV-328 under POPs Control
Africa
In Africa, the most significant dangerous-goods story this week is again the Arctic Metagaz, now from the African coastal-state perspective. Reuters reported on March 20 that the tanker was days from Libyan shores and then on March 21 that Libya’s National Oil Corporation hired a specialist firm to address the drifting vessel, coordinating with Mellitah Oil and Gas and Eni while setting up an emergency room. That is a government-led hazardous-cargo response with direct implications for coastal-state duties, environmental liability, and emergency intervention around LNG and bunker-fuel cargoes.
Beyond Libya, Africa’s formal regulatory picture remains quieter than its operational one. South Africa’s transport framework still anchors dangerous-goods road carriage in UN-numbering, classification, packaging, marking, and labeling principles, while across the continent ports and customs authorities continue to lean on IMDG- and UN-style compliance expectations in the absence of frequent new legislation. The legal reality is that practical enforcement is still outpacing statute in many African jurisdictions.
Central and South America
In Central and South America, the most concrete government development this week comes from Colombia. Colombia’s Ministry of Transport portal continued publishing March logistics notices and training sessions, while the dangerous-goods driver-information system (SISCONMP) remained active and current as of March 20–23. The Ministry’s document portal also shows ongoing administrative actions involving cargo carriers and related transport compliance. That is not a new regional treaty text, but it is exactly the sort of administrative rollout that turns hazardous-cargo regulation into day-to-day enforceable practice through training, registration, and traceability.
Conclusions
The week’s main legal lesson is that dangerous-goods regulation is moving on three tracks at once. In the United States, PHMSA is using special permits and harmonization rulemaking to manage new technologies and multimodal risk. In Europe, UNECE and OTIF are using the Joint Meeting process to build the next amendment cycle while regulators confront real-world hazardous-cargo emergencies at sea. In Asia, Africa, and Latin America, governments and carriers are translating hazardous-cargo risk into route control, traceability, consultation drafts, and emergency response rather than waiting for sweeping new statutory packages. For practitioners, the standard of care now plainly includes not only classification and placarding, but also battery evidence, digital-document integrity, driver qualification, route risk, and emergency preparedness.
