Vol. 135, No. 44 — November 3, 2001

Regulations Amending the Name Use by Non-financial Businesses (Excluded Entities) Regulations

Statutory Authority

Bank Act

Sponsoring Department

Department of Finance

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

For the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, see the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Designated Violations Regulations.

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

For the Proposed Regulatory Text, see the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Designated Violations Regulations.

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NAME USE BY NON-FINANCIAL BUSINESSES (EXCLUDED ENTITIES) REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) Paragraph 2(e) of the Name Use by Non-financial Businesses (Excluded Entities) Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:

(e) an entity that is affiliated with a bank or a bank holding company;

(2) Section 2 of the Regulations is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (h) and by adding the following after paragraph (i):

(j) an entity that has a substantial investment in a bank or a bank holding company; and

(k) an entity that is affiliated with an entity that has a substantial investment in a bank or a bank holding company.

COMING INTO FORCE

2. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

[44-1-o]

Regulations Amending the Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations

Statutory Authority

Canada Labour Code

Sponsoring Department

Department of Human Resources Development

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The proposed amendments to Part XII (Safety Materials, Equipment, Devices and Clothing) of the Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (COSH Regulations) are made pursuant to the Canada Labour Code, Part II, the purpose of which is to prevent accidents and injuries arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment in the federal jurisdiction.

Part XII prescribes safety materials, equipment, devices and clothing that must be used to protect employees when it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate a health or safety hazard in the workplace. It also delineates the equipment that must be provided by employers and that must be used by employees.

The Regulatory Review Committee for the technical revision of the COSH Regulations at the Labour Branch of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) directed that the current Regulations be reviewed to reflect the interpretation given in a Court decision with regard to the word structure, used in subsection 12.10(1) of the Regulations. The Ontario Court (General Division) ruled in 1996 that trucks and other mobile equipment were not "structures" and, therefore, subsection 12.10(1) did not apply to them (R. v. Provost Transport Inc.). This interpretation meant that there was no longer a specific requirement to provide protection for workers who were required to climb onto objects not covered under the term "vehicle" as determined by the courts. This proposed amendment will correct the anomaly and ensure that employees working on vehicles have the same protection as all other employees under federal jurisdiction.

In consultation with the Regulatory Review Committee, it was also agreed to update the CSA Standard referenced in paragraph 12.10(2)(a) to the more recent version published in September 1995 in English and in 1996 in French (CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z259.1-95, Safety Belts and Lanyards).

A further amendment is brought to the French version, in paragraph 12.10(1)(c) to correct an inconsistency with the English text.

Alternatives

The working group assigned to review Part XII of the COSH Regulations considered the options of retaining, revoking or amending the existing provisions. The first two options were not deemed acceptable for the following reasons:

(a) retaining the existing provisions may not afford adequate protection to employees against injury; and

(b) revoking regulations in the area of occupational health and safety could result in decreased protection for employees; in addition, it is a sensitive issue for many Canadians, particularly within the labour movement.

Therefore, the existing provisions were amended to provide greater clarity and to increase worker protection.

Benefits and Costs

The anticipated effects of the proposed changes to Part XII of the COSH Regulations are described in detail in the January 19, 1999 report entitled Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Revised Regulation on Protection from Falls. The complete report is available, on request, from the Department.

Principal Benefits

The main benefit of the proposed revised Regulations is the reduction or elimination of accidental injury and mortality in a fall from a height over 2.4 metres.

The direct economic benefits are realized mainly in the advantage to the Canadian economy as a result of the lowered risk of injury or mortality following the introduction of regulations. There are also indirect benefits, which are the avoidance of various economic losses generated by occupational illness and accidents. Among the indirect benefits from a health and safety regulation would be, for example, improving in labour relations and workers' morale, and saving the overtime cost of work not completed by injured or deceased workers.

Costs

Adequate fall-protection equipment and training will need to be supplied by federal jurisdiction employers to protect their workers when climbing on stationary trucks, railway cars, aircraft, and other mobile equipment.

Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs

This scenario projection is based on operational parameters.

Assumptions

— Beginning in 1999, for a period of 20 years;

— For an estimated 12,739 workers under federal jurisdiction;

— Compliance Rate at 90 percent;

— Social Discount Rate calculated at 10 percent;

— Including indirect costs and with Indirect-to-Direct-Cost Ratio taken at 1:1;

— The net effectiveness of the regulatory amendment is estimated over and above the level of fall-protection systems currently in place.

Expressed in 1997 constant dollars:

Total Benefits $236,851,640

Total Costs $ 72,329,225

Net Present Value $164,522,415 Benefits exceeding costs

Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 3.3:1.

An alternate scenario was evaluated, using costs as supplied by the relevant industries on a business impact test. These costs were estimated as far greater than in the operational scenario, and after discounting using the same parameters as given above, the 20-year cost projection for this maximal scenario was $236,291,595. Thus, by a slight margin, the total benefits still exceeded the total costs.

For a detailed methodology of this cost-benefit analysis, please refer to the Technical Note.

Consultation

In 1986, the Labour Branch of HRDC established a Regulatory Review Committee for the technical revision of federal occupational health and safety legislation. This Committee consists of an equal membership drawn from organized labour and employer organizations in the federal jurisdiction.

In 1996, the Regulatory Review Committee appointed a working group to review the positions and concerns of labour, management and HRDC regarding subsection 12.10(1), which deals with fall-protection systems, of Part XII (Safety Materials, Equipment, Devices and Clothing) of the COSH Regulations. The members of the working group, representing a wide range of industrial sectors, were appointed by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and by the Federally Regulated Employers in Transportation and Communications Organization (FETCO). A complete list of members is available upon request.

In the spring of 1998, employer and employee groups were asked to respond to a questionnaire designed to estimate the socio-economic impact of the implementation of the proposed amendments.

Non Consensus Issue

After more than a year of consultation, the concerned parties could not reach consensus on the solution to the problem.

Viewpoints of employers and employees

Employer representatives claimed that there were some situations where the industry could not comply with a blanket requirement for fall protection. The following examples were cited: some bulk tanks, or some trucks transporting logs, wood chips or other items on a flatbed that need to be tied down. To address the safety issue, they suggested a requirement for fall protection for mobile equipment "where reasonably practicable."

Employee representatives challenged the notion that some part of the industry could not comply. In their view, workers need to be protected, either by not having to climb on top of these vehicles or by having suitable fall-protection systems in cases where they must climb.

HRDC met with representatives of employers (FETCO and Canadian Trucking Alliance) and of employees (CLC). Various options were discussed but no agreement was reached. HRDC proposed possible wording for an amendment to subsection 12.10(1) at a Regulatory Review Committee meeting. Again no consensus could be obtained. After careful analysis of the situation, HRDC proposes the attached text to remedy the situation created by the Provost case.

The text of the Regulations has been modified to include the term "vehicles," which, by definition, includes trucks, rail cars, etc.

The issue raised by the employer representatives during consultation, i.e. the impossibility of certain types of truck trailers to comply with the Regulations, either because of engineering problems or high monetary cost, is eliminated by adding a reasonably practicable clause. Where it is not reasonably practicable to comply, the employer must justify the reason with a report to a Labour Program Regional Health and Safety officer and the Health and Safety Committee or representative. Further to this, employers must still comply with additional provisions of the Regulations to ensure the health and safety of employees.

Prepublication

These amendments to subsection 12.10(1) of the COSH Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on September 4, 1999. However, due to continued discussions with the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the recent amendments to the Canada Labour Code, Part II, the 18-month window to proceed to Part II of the Canada Gazette was exceeded.

During prepublication of the amendments to subsection 12.10(1) in Part I of the Canada Gazette, subsequent consultation with employers resulted in a change in the requirement to "install" a fall-protection system. The proposed requirement to "provide" a fall-protection system offers employers greater flexibility when evaluating the best method for ensuring their employees' protection against falls.

Compliance and Enforcement

The principal objective of HRDC's Labour Branch's Compliance Policy is to encourage fairer, more effective and less costly compliance activities. The objectives and techniques of compliance and the procedures and processes used to these ends are detailed in the Canada Labour Code, Part II, Compliance Policy, issued in 1986 and reviewed in 1994.

The means used within the Policy to achieve the prevention of occupational injury and disease are predicated on the assumption that the majority of establishments in the federal jurisdiction voluntarily comply with the Canada Labour Code, Part II. It is also assumed that they are willing and intend to meet their health and safety obligations.

The Policy is designed to deal effectively with non-compliance. Where non-compliance is detected, an opportunity is provided for correction suited to the situation by securing an assurance of voluntary compliance (AVC) or issuing a direction. If non-compliance persists, further action, up to and including prosecution, is initiated.

Participation in this consultative process, during the review of Part XII (Safety Materials, Equipment, Devices and Clothing) of the COSH Regulations, promotes more effective voluntary compliance by labour and management.

Contact

Stephen A. Mitrow, Program Consultant, Occupational Health and Safety Compliance and Regulatory Development Unit, Labour Branch, Human Resources Development Canada, Hull, Quebec K1A 0J2, (819) 953-0240 (Telephone), (819) 953-4830 (Facsimile), stephen.mitrow@hrdc-drhc.gc.ca (Electronic mail).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council proposes, pursuant to sections 125 (see footnote a) and 157 (see footnote b) of the Canada Labour Code, to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations in writing with respect to the proposed Regulations within 75 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Stephen Mitrow, Labour Branch, Human Resources Development Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J2.

Ottawa, October 25, 2001

RENNIE M. MARCOUX
Acting Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS

AMENDMENT

1. Subsection 12.10(1) (see footnote 2) of the Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (see footnote 3) is replaced by the following:

12.10 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), every employer shall provide a fall-protection system to any person, other than an employee who is installing or removing a fall-protection system in accordance with the instructions referred to in subsection (5), who works

(a) from an unguarded structure or on a vehicle, at a height of more than 2.4 m above the nearest permanent safe level or above any moving parts of machinery or any other surface or thing that could cause injury to an employee on contact;

(b) from a temporary structure at a height of more than 6 m above a permanent safe level; or

(c) from a ladder at a height of more than 2.4 m above the nearest permanent safe level where, because of the nature of the work, that person is able to use only one hand to hold onto the ladder.

(1.1) Where an employee is required to work on a vehicle on which it is not reasonably practicable to provide a fall-protection system, the employer shall

(a) in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative,

(b) make a report in writing to the regional health and safety officer setting out the reasons why it is not reasonably practicable to provide a fall-protection system and include the job safety analysis and a description of the training and instruction referred to in paragraph (a); and

(c) provide a copy of the report referred to in paragraph (b) to the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative.

(1.2) The job safety analysis, training and instruction referred to in paragraph (1.1)(a) shall be performed and reviewed every two years in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative.

COMING INTO FORCE

2. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

[44-1-o]

Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Seat Belt Anchorages and Windshield Mounting — Air Bags)

Statutory Authority

Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Sponsoring Department

Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

This proposed amendment to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 4) (MVSR) is intended to clarify the testing requirements of section 210, "Seat Belt Anchorages," and to update the terminology that is used to refer to "air bags" in section 212, "Windshield Mounting."

The Requirements Governing Seat Belt Assemblies

At the moment, modern technology offers two types of occupant restraint systems: the manual three-point seat belt, which provides primary protection, and the air-bag system, which provides supplementary protection. Manual three-point seat belts, which are referred to as Type 2 manual seat belt assemblies in the MVSR, consist of a combined lap-and-shoulder belt anchored to the vehicle at three locations. They are designed to protect the body from injury due to striking the interior of the vehicle and to prevent ejection. Driver and front passenger air bags, which have become standard equipment on the majority of vehicles, deploy automatically in a collision. They are designed to provide supplementary protection to the head, neck, and chest.

Section 210, (see footnote 5) "Seat Belt Anchorages," sets strength requirements for the anchorages that secure seat belts to vehicles, and it defines a zone, relative to the occupant, within which the anchorages must be located. Related requirements governing seat belt anchorages are also contained in sections 208 and 209. Section 208, (see footnote 6) "Occupant Restraint Systems in Frontal Impact," specifies performance requirements related to the protection of occupants in frontal collisions, while section 209, (see footnote 7) "Seat Belt Assemblies," specifies the strength and attachment requirements for the seat belt assemblies themselves.

As part of its ongoing compliance program, the Department of Transport tests seat belt anchorage strength to ensure that the requirements of section 210 are being met. During the course of this testing, an ambiguity in the wording of subsections 210(7) (see footnote 8) and (8) (see footnote 9) came to light, which this amendment proposes to clarify.

Subsection 210(7) currently reads as follows:

Except in the case of side-facing seats, when seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 manual seat belt assembly or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 manual seat belt assembly that is equipped with a detachable upper torso restraint are tested for strength in accordance with Test Method 210 — Seat Belt Anchorages (December 1996), the anchorages shall withstand a force of 22 240 N.

The Department wishes to clarify the meaning of the word "withstand" by replacing this subsection with the following:

Except in the case of side-facing seats, when seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 manual seat belt assembly or for the pelvic portion of a Type 2 manual seat belt assembly that is equipped with a detachable upper torso restraint are tested for strength in accordance with Test Method 210 — Seat Belt Anchorages (December 1996) by applying a force of 22 240 N,

(a) none of their points of attachment to the seat frames, seat pedestals or vehicle structure shall separate completely; and

(b) they shall not fail in a manner that prevents the seat belt assembly from providing the occupant restraint required by section 208 or 209.

The above proposed change would also apply to subsection 210(8), which currently reads as follows:

When seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 manual seat belt assembly are tested for strength in accordance with Test Method 210 — Seat Belt Anchorages (December 1996), the anchorages for the pelvic portion and the upper torso portion shall withstand a force of 13 344 N applied simultaneously.

This amendment proposes to replace subsection 210(8) with the following:

When the seat belt anchorages for the pelvic portion and for the upper torso portion of a Type 2 manual seat belt assembly are tested for strength in accordance with Test Method 210 — Seat Belt Anchorages (December 1996) by simultaneously applying a force of 13 344 N,

(a) none of their points of attachment to the seat frames, seat pedestals or vehicle structure shall separate completely; and

(b) they shall not fail in a manner that prevents the seat belt assembly from providing the occupant restraint required by section 208 or 209.

This amendment also proposes to repeal subsection 210(9), (see footnote 10) which currently reads as follows:

Permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage during the test shall not be considered a failure to comply with subsection (7) or (8) if the required force is maintained for 10 seconds.

These proposed changes to section 210 would eliminate any existing ambiguity concerning the testing requirements for seat belt anchorages, thereby facilitating enforcement.

Updating the Terminology used in Section 212, "Windshield Mounting"

At present, the term "automatic occupant protection system" is used to refer to "air bag" in section 212, (see footnote 11) which sets windshield retention requirements for motor vehicles in the case of a collision. This amendment proposes to replace the term "automatic occupant protection system" with "air bag" in subsections 212(3) and (4) (see footnote 12) in order to bring it up to date with current usage and to harmonize the wording of section 212 with that of sections 201 (see footnote 13) and 208.

Effective Date

This amendment would come into effect on the date of its registration by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Alternatives

Since the purpose of this amendment is to clarify the testing requirements of section 210 and to revise the terminology used in section 212, no alternatives were considered acceptable. This initiative would not affect efforts to harmonize the regulatory requirements of Canada and the United States.

Benefits and Costs

No specific costs are associated with this proposed amendment, and it would not have any impact on the environment.

Consultation

Public safety organizations, motor vehicle manufacturers, and other government agencies have been informed of the Department's intention to make this amendment. It is possible to comment on this proposal during the 60-day consultation period that will follow prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Comments may also be made at any of the meetings that are held regularly with industry representatives to discuss regulatory development matters. All responses will be taken into consideration in the development of the final amendment.

Compliance and Enforcement

Motor vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. The Department of Transport monitors the self-certification programs of manufacturers and importers by reviewing their test documentation, inspecting vehicles, and testing vehicles obtained in the open market. When a defect is found, the manufacturer or importer must issue a notice of defect to owners and to the Minister of Transport. If a vehicle does not comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer or importer is subject to prosecution and, if found guilty, may be fined as prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Contact

For further information, please contact: Marc-André Bergevin, Regulatory Development Engineer, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5, (613) 998-2670 (Telephone), (613) 990-2913 (Facsimile), bergema@tc.gc.ca (Electronic mail).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (see footnote c), that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 5 (see footnote d) and subsection 11(1) of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Seat Belt Anchorages and Windshield Mounting — Air Bags).

Interested persons may make representations to the Minister of Transport with respect to the proposed Regulations within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. All representations must be in writing and cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Marc-André Bergevin, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5. (tel.: (613) 998-2670; fax: (613) 990-2913; e-mail: bergema@tc.gc.ca)

Persons making representations should identify any of those representations the disclosure of which should be refused under the Access to Information Act, in particular under sections 19 and 20 of that Act, and should indicate the reasons why and the period during which the representations should not be disclosed. They should also identify any representations for which there is consent to disclosure for the purposes of that Act.

Ottawa, October 25, 2001

RENNIE M. MARCOUX
Acting Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (SEAT BELT ANCHORAGES AND WINDSHIELD MOUNTING — AIR BAGS)

AMENDMENTS

1. Subsections 210(7) to (9) (see footnote 14) of Schedule IV to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 15) are replaced by the following:

(7) Except in the case of side-facing seats, when seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 manual seat belt assembly or for the pelvic portion of a Type 2 manual seat belt assembly that is equipped with a detachable upper torso restraint are tested for strength in accordance with Test Method 210 — Seat Belt Anchorages (December 1996) by applying a force of 22 240 N,

(a) none of their points of attachment to the seat frames, seat pedestals or vehicle structure shall separate completely; and

(b) they shall not fail in a manner that prevents the seat belt assembly from providing the occupant restraint required by section 208 or 209.

(8) When the seat belt anchorages for the pelvic portion and for the upper torso portion of a Type 2 manual seat belt assembly are tested for strength in accordance with Test Method 210 — Seat Belt Anchorages (December 1996) by simultaneously applying a force of 13 344 N,

(a) none of their points of attachment to the seat frames, seat pedestals or vehicle structure shall separate completely; and

(b) they shall not fail in a manner that prevents the seat belt assembly from providing the occupant restraint required by section 208 or 209.

2. Wherever the expression "automatic occupant protection system" occurs in subsections 212(3) (see footnote 16) and (4) (see footnote 17) of Schedule IV to the Regulations, it shall in every case be replaced by the expression "air bag".

COMING INTO FORCE

3. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

[44-1-o]

Footnote 1

SOR/2001-408

Footnote a

S.C. 2000, c. 20, s. 5

Footnote b

S.C. 2000, c. 20, s. 20

Footnote 2

SOR/94-263

Footnote 3

SOR/86-304; SOR/94-263

Footnote 4

C.R.C., c. 1038

Footnote 5

SOR/97-447

Footnote 6

SOR/98-524

Footnote 7

SOR/97-447

Footnote 8

SOR/97-447

Footnote 9

SOR/97-447

Footnote 10

SOR/97-447

Footnote 11

SOR/97-421

Footnote 12

SOR/93-5

Footnote 13

SOR/97-447

Footnote c

S.C. 1993, c. 16

Footnote d

S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 351

Footnote 14

SOR/97-447

Footnote 15

C.R.C., c. 1038

Footnote 16

SOR/93-5

Footnote 17

SOR/93-5

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).