The United Nations Subcommittee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE TDG) is holding their 66th Session June 30 through July 4, 2025 in Geneva, Switzerland. There are 36 formal and 57 informal papers submitted for discussion as of Day 1. This session is the first of four sessions during the 2025-2026 biennium.

All daily sessions are to be held formally (interpreted). Therefore, papers are to be reviewed as listed on the agenda (INF.2) and final decisions will be taken when appropriate.

This summary is provided to assist you in following the discussions of the papers and is not intended as a full summary of document that was presented. Links to individual papers are provided to allow you to read the papers directly. Note that the Official report of the session will be made available by the UN Secretariat 3-4 weeks after the session concludes.

Day 1 – Discussion of Papers

The UN Executive Secretary (ES) addressed the Subcommittee and discussed the challenges that the UN is currently facing, including significant budget constraints. As a result, there are pending potential changes that may impact TDG Subcommittee. They requested political support for funding but also requested alternate funding to continue operations. Any future changes will be communicated. The ES also thanked Duane Pfund for his 10+ years of service to the TDG Subcommittee.

Duane Pfund also announced his departure as the Chairman of the UN SCOE TDG Subcommittee. The Subcommittee will hold elections for Chairman on Day 4.

INF.38(Secretariat) Reception by NGO’s – SAAMI invited interested delegations to attend the Annual NGO reception following the Plenary session on Day 2. All parties were invited. No proposals were considered.

Energetics Working Group (EWG)

The following documents were briefly introduced in the Plenary session and referred to the EWG for further discussion. Full summaries of the documents will be provided in the Report of the EWG (drafted by IME).

Non-Explosive Papers

2025/2 (Spain) Spanish language version for UN 3550 Cobalt dihydroxide powder – Spain proposed changes to the technical description of the entry for UN3550. No proposals were made to the proper shipping name or the English version. The Subcommittee agreed to the proposals as drafted.

2025/9 (Germany) Introduction of a new UN entry for toxic liquids with corrosive and flammable subsidiary hazards – Germany noted a number of substances that represent toxic, corrosive and flammable subsidiary hazards. Yet, a generic N.O.S. entry does not exist that recognizes all 3 hazards. They proposed to adopt an entry that would identify hazards as 6.1 (8, 3). Belgium and the Netherlands agreed with the proposals for the entry but requested additional justification for inclusion of appropriate portable tank provisions. China pointed out there is currently only one N.O.S. entry (UN3286) that recognizes 3 hazards and that entry does not include flammable liquids as a PG III. They questioned whether it would be necessary to recognize all three hazards. If so, China reasoned there may be other entries that should recognize 3 hazards. The Republic of Korea agreed with China and suggested PG I and PG III entries should be included. DGAC did not oppose the proposal but questioned whether this type of proposal would open the door for many N.O.S entries. The US pointed out Germany provided data for a PG II entry and they supported the proposal as drafted. If additional data is available for other packing groups, those decisions could be considered at a future session. Germany shared that the TP provisions were based existing entries with related hazards. They were willing to consider PG I but not prepared to consider PG III. Based on the discussion, the Subcommittee agreed to the proposals with modification.

2025/15 (China) Clarification of provision 2.3.1.3 of the Model Regulations – China questioned whether a substance that has a flashpoint between 35oC and 60oC and that does not sustain combustion BUT is transported at a temperature above its flashpoint should be regulated as a Class 3 material. Neither the ICAO TI nor the IMDG Code contain any clarifying statements. However, ADR 2.2.3.1.1 requires such substances to be offered as Class 3. They proposed to adopt the language in the ADR to address the concern. Austria shared challenges with the ADR approach, pointing out temperatures will vary from season to season. This leads to situations where a substance may change classification depending on the weather. They offered that “intentionally heated” could be added as a clarification. Sweden and the Netherlands supported the proposal as drafted. The US did not support the proposal and added the test in ADR 2.2.3.1.1 is shown as a note and questioned whether it was mandatory text. The Netherlands shared that “notes” in the ADR are indeed mandatory, unlike other regulations. They preferred to study the issue further. Australia supported the proposal and provided a slight editorial amendment. The UK and DGAC opposed the proposal and agreed with Austria that the ADR note is very confusing. Belgium agreed with the US that the issue should be discussed further. Based on the discussion, China withdrew the proposal but indicated they would return with a proposal at a future session. No proposals were adopted.

2025/19 (UNICEF, WHO) + INF.41 (UNICEF, WHO) + INF.45 (United Kingdom) Transport of solid hazardous substances with low concentration – New special provision to UN 3077 – Proposal for the transport of hazardous substances with low concentration in the form of insecticide treated nets – UNICEF described challenges with the transport of mosquito netting bonded with insecticide that meet the definition of an environmentally hazardous substances. The nets release the insecticide slowly, allowing for three (3) years of useful life. The nets today are interpreted to be offered as either UN3363 DANGEROUS GOODS IN APPARATUS or UN3077 ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, N.O.S. Given the current limitations in SP375, requiring additional packaging for each net will significantly increase the use of plastic packaging and would not be sustainable. They requested the Subcommittee consider adopting an exception that would exceed the 5L/5kg exception up to 50 kg. The UK proposed an alternative approach in INF.51. Sweden preferred to consider the nets as articles and suggested that Option 4 could be simplified by revising SP301. Belgium did not believe any of the options satisfied the need. But they supported Sweden’s approach to revise SP301. Norway supported Option 3 but suggested “disease control” would be a better term. Austria questioned whether the nets really represented a dangerous good. The US preferred to provide a full exception to the nets with a packaging limitation. They disagreed that the net would be considered an article, and felt SP375 would be more appropriate. China opined Option 2 in INF.41 was more acceptable as it addressed the amount of UN3077 in the nets vs the total mass of the nets themselves. After discussions in the margin of the meeting, UNICEF indicated they would prepare a revised proposal for consideration later in the session. No proposals were considered.

2025/22 (Sweden) + INF.10 (Sweden) Classification of UN 1758 CHROMIUM OXYCHLORIDE – Sweden argued that based on testing, Chromium Oxychloride should be identified as a strong oxidizer (PG I) in addition to the corrosive nature. They proposed consequential amendments to change the primary and subsidiary hazards along with a transitional period. Austria questioned whether the material also met the criteria as a toxic substance. China voiced doubt as to whether the criteria for oxidizing substances between GHS and TDG were fully compatible and cautioned that the proposal would effectively ban the product from air transport. They requested additional data to support the proposal before adopting. The US agreed with China. The US agreed that a 5.1 subsidiary hazard may be appropriate, but they did not support identifying a Div. 5.1 as the primary hazard. Germany preferred a Div. 5.1 subsidiary hazard. The Netherlands felt additional research was necessary. Based on the discussion, Sweden revised their proposal to add Div. 5.1 as a subsidiary hazard. Many in the Subcommittee preferred to additional time to consider the revised proposal. As a result, Sweden withdrew the proposal and will return at a future session with a revised proposal. No proposals were adopted.

2025/30 (Kingdom of the Netherlands) + INF.13 (Kingdom of the Netherlands) Categorization and clarification of the term “hermetically sealed” in the Model Regulations – The Netherlands proposed to clarify and clean up the use of the term “hermetically sealed” throughout the regulations, and offered several suggestions to consider. In INF.13, they reviewed similar usage of “sift-proof”, “gas-tight”, “vapour tight”, and “leak-tight”. Proposal 6 introduced test criteria that could be used to determine permeability, although the details of the test were not discussed. CEFIC and DGAC opined that additional permeability tests would conflict with current packing provisions and were not necessary. China and the US voiced caution that proposals 1-5 may create unintended consequences and suggested the existing terms were used intentionally. Both were also opposed to creating a new testing method as offered in Proposal 6. Germany agreed that clarification was necessary and generally supported proposals 1-5. But they felt proposal 6 was too broad reaching and may not be necessary. Proposal 1 of 2025/30 was adopted as a correction. Based on the discussion, the Netherlands indicated they would prepare a revised proposal for consideration of Proposals 2-6 either during this session or at a future session.

INF.6 (China) Clarification on special provision 216 of the Model Regulations – China questioned whether a material consigned as UN3175 Solids containing flammable liquid would be subject to testing as a Div. 4.1. If it were tested and determined not to meet the criteria, would the material be regulated for transport? Belgium, the US, and UK agreed that testing would not be required to use the entry. However, if the testing were conducted and the material did not meet the criteria for Div. 4.1, the material would not be regulated. The Subcommittee agreed with previous speakers. No proposals were considered.

End of Day 1 [COSTHA]