Canada Gazette
www.gazette.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Vol. 136, No. 50 — December 14, 2002
Regulations Amending the Nova Scotia Offshore Certificate of Fitness Regulations
Statutory Authority
Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act
Sponsoring Department
Department of Natural Resources
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
Description
These Regulations amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Certificate of Fitness Regulations.
Under the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Certificate of Fitness Regulations, an independent third party known as a certifying authority is required to confirm to the regulatory agency that an oil and gas installation or structure has been designed, constructed and installed in accordance with recognized standards. This confirmation will be in the form of a certificate of fitness issued by a certifying authority.
Every offshore installation operating in areas where the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act applies, requires a certificate of fitness. The certifying authority conducts reviews and analyses prior to issuance of a certificate. The certifying authority is also responsible for inspections and surveys during the construction and operation phases of the installation. The responsibility of the certifying authority continues until the installation is abandoned or removed, or until a new certifying authority has sufficient time to assume responsibilities.
The proposed Regulations would update the list of prescribed certifying authorities set in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Certificate of Fitness Regulations.
The regulatory amendments will ensure that the list of prescribed certifying authorities reflects those companies that are competent and willing to provide certificates of fitness, as required by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.
Germanischer Lloyd, has requested that its name be added to the list of certifying authorities set out in the Regulations.
The request by Germanischer Lloyd was considered by Natural Resources Canada, the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and the offshore Petroleum Boards, and the request was found to be acceptable.
Alternatives
There is no alternative to amending these regulations in order to add a new certifying authority to the list and to delete an existing authority.
Benefits and Costs
This amendment does not impact on the forms and documentation required pursuant to the above Regulations and industry will not be affected financially as a result of this amendment.
Employment for Canadians would not be affected by these amendments since these certifying authorities are internationally recognized companies involved in the certification and surveying of marine vessel and offshore installations. There are no Canadian companies that provide these services to the marine or offshore industry.
Consultation
Natural Resources Canada consulted with the National Energy Board, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, the governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and the petroleum industry about these proposed changes.
Compliance and Enforcement
The Chief Safety Officer has to approve the scope of work of a certifying authority wishing to issue a certificate of fitness for an offshore installation. Continued compliance with the Regulations and with the conditions for certification is assured by the approval process for production and drilling and inspections. Failure to comply can result in suspension or revocation of an operator's authority to conduct operations.
Mr. Michael Hnetka, Advisor, Regulations, Natural Resources Canada, 17B2, 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E4, (613) 992-2916.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 154(1) of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act (see footnote a) , that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 143.2(6) (see footnote b) and section 153 (see footnote c) of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Nova Scotia Offshore Certificate of Fitness Regulations.
Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations within 30 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 sent to Michael Hnetka, Advisor Regulations, Frontier Lands Management Division, Natural Resources Canada, 17B2 - 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E4 (telephone: (613) 992-2916; fax: (613) 943-2274).
Ottawa, December 5, 2002
EILEEN BOYD
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NOVA SCOTIA OFFSHORE CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS REGULATIONS
AMENDMENT
1. The definition "certifying authority" in section 2 of the Nova Scotia Offshore Certificate of Fitness Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:
"certifying authority" means the American Bureau of Shipping, Bureau Veritas, Det norske Veritas Classification A/S, Germanischer Lloyd or Lloyd's Register of Shipping; (société d'accréditation)
COMING INTO FORCE
2. These Regulations come into force on the day on which the corresponding amendments to the Nova Scotia Offshore Area Certificate of Fitness Regulations, N.S. Reg 4/96, made under section 146 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation (Nova Scotia) Act, S.N.S. 1987, c.3, come into force.
[50-1-o]
Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Fuel System Integrity)
Statutory Authority
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Sponsoring Department
Department of Transport
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
Description
The purpose of this amendment is to propose an upgrade to the rear- and side-impact test requirements of the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 301, Fuel System Integrity, to better protect vehicle occupants from fuel spillage in the event of a collision. Changes are also being proposed to the specifications of the tires installed on the moveable barrier mentioned in CMVSS 301.1, LPG Fuel System Integrity and 301.2, CNG Fuel System Integrity.
This amendment proposes to replace the current rear-impact test procedure with one that specifies striking the rear of the test vehicle at 80 km/h with a 1 368 kg (3 015 lb.) moving deformable barrier (MDB) at a 70-percent overlap with the test vehicle. The MDB face would be located 50 mm lower than the face of the barrier required by U.S Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 214, Side Impact Protection to simulate pre-crash braking.
It also proposes the adoption of the same-side-impact test procedure as the one specified in FMVSS 214. This is intended to provide a more realistic test, thus increasing safety while reducing testing costs.
In addition, this amendment proposes a revision to the moving barrier tire specifications for CMVSS 301.1 and 301.2. The proposed upgraded tire specifications are either P215/75R15 tires, inflated to 221 kPa, or P205/75R15 tires, inflated to 207 kPa. The final decision on the size of the tires to be specified will be made based on the comments received following pre-publication in the Canada Gazette.
Introduction
In the event of a crash, preserving fuel system integrity to prevent occupant exposure to fire is critical. Although vehicle fires are relatively rare (occurring in only 1 percent of vehicles involved in tow-away crashes), they tend to be more severe in terms of casualties. According to an analysis by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 4 percent of light vehicle occupant fatalities occurred in crashes involving fire. (see footnote 2) The fire itself was deemed to be the most harmful event in the vehicle for about 20 percent of these fatalities. An analysis of U.S. National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) data between 1991 and 1998 shows that about 12 941 occupants per year were exposed to fire in passenger cars and light vehicles (vans, pickup trucks and multipurpose vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] of 4 536 kg [10 000 lb.] or less) that were towed away from the fire. Of those occupants, about 8 percent received moderate to severe burns. Three-quarters of those with moderate and severe burns had second- or third-degree burns over more than 90 percent of the body; maximum-severity burns are nearly always fatal. In Canada, an analysis of the Traffic Accident Information Data (TRAID) between 1994 and 1999 shows that about 320 occupants (see footnote 3) per year were exposed to fire in passenger cars and light vehicles that were towed away from the fire. These statistics underscore the importance of preserving fuel system integrity in a crash in order to prevent vehicle fires.
The feasibility of upgrading the rear- and side-impact requirements of FMVSS 301 and CMVSS 301 were investigated after U.S. research indicated that fuel system integrity could be improved. Real-world data were reviewed to determine what types of rear-impact crashes result in "moderate," "severe" and "very severe" fires. (see footnote 4) Next, the data were analyzed to determine whether the fire or the impact of the crash caused the fatalities or injuries. Then the data were examined to determine the types of rear crashes that cause fire-related fatalities and injuries. Finally, a new crash test procedure, the one proposed in the amendment, was developed to simulate the most frequent crash scenario that leads to fire and fire-related fatalities and injuries in rear-impact crashes. The NHTSA performed 17 crash tests using the proposed crash-test procedure.
A U.S. study (see footnote 5) indicated that, for vehicles receiving rear damage, a moving deformable barrier with a partial overlap would simulate the most common type of fire-producing crash. (Overlap is the percentage of the rear width involved in a crash.) The study also presented information on impact speed for crash simulations. For rear impacts, the delta V (crash speed differential) ranged from 11 km/h to 73 km/h, with a median of 42 km/h. Overlap ranged from 30 to 95 percent, with an average of 71 percent.
Another U.S. study (see footnote 6) of 214 fire-related fatal crashes determined whether the fatalities were caused by the fire or by blunt trauma, and analyzed the specific crash conditions that caused the fire. These fatal crashes involved 251 vehicles and 293 occupant fatalities. Twenty-two percent of the 293 fatalities were due to burn-related trauma, while the remaining 78 percent were due to impact-related trauma. The subset of the 22 percent burn-related trauma fatalities was categorized by crash type. The resulting distribution shows that 46 percent of the fatalities occurred from rear impacts, 23 percent from front impacts, 15 percent from side impacts, 11 percent from rollover crashes, and 5 percent from "other" impact types. Although the majority of crashes in which fire occurs are frontal crashes (58 percent), an analysis of fatalities due to burn-related trauma shows that rear impacts account for more (46 percent) than other crash types.
This analysis points to the need to prevent fuel leakage following a rear-impact collision, as a fatal rear impact involving fire is more likely to result in a burn-related fatality than other fire-related crashes. This amendment therefore proposes to upgrade the requirements of CMVSS 301, Fuel System Integrity to better protect vehicle occupants from fuel spillage in the event of a collision.
Background
Currently, the crash testing requirements of the U.S. and Canadian regulations for fuel system integrity are almost identical. They require a frontal crash into a fixed barrier at 48 km/h, a lateral-moving barrier crash at 32 km/h and a rear-moving full-width barrier crash at 48 km/h. The moving barrier weighs 1 814 kg and its impact surface is flat and rigid. After each crash, a static rollover test is performed. Fuel spillage after each crash must not exceed 28 g/min.
There are minor differences between the current FMVSS 301 and the Canadian CMVSS 301. These minor differences relate to the anti-siphoning of alcohol, the unsecured mass for school-bus-crash testing, and the use of test dummies. The following provides a summary of the differences and the proposed new requirements.
FMVSS 301 has an anti-siphoning test for alcohol-fuelled vehicles, but there is no such requirement in CMVSS 301. Although very few alcohol-fuelled vehicles are sold in Canada, the Department is proposing to include this requirement because it will have only an insignificant cost implication and would provide protection from the ingestion of fuels during siphoning. The inclusion of this requirement will harmonize the U.S. and Canadian requirements.
Current regulations specify the unsecured mass used when a school bus is tested to be 54 kg in the United States and 55 kg in Canada. The Department is proposing that Technical Standards Document (TSD) No. 301, incorporated by reference in CMVSS 301, refer only to 55 kg to maintain harmony with other Canadian regulations.
The amended regulation will continue to require the use of a 50th-percentile adult-male test dummy at every front outboard position, as set out in the current CMVSS and FMVSS 208.
A current U.S. proposal (see footnote 7) on fuel system integrity proposes the harmonization of the side-impact crash-testing requirements of FMVSS 214 and FMVSS 301 to eliminate the need to conduct separate side-impact tests for these two standards. Although the current Canadian side-impact Regulation CMVSS 214 does not include dynamic side-impact testing criteria, the Department signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with vehicle manufacturers in February 2001 that specifies that light duty vehicles must meet, at the choice of the manufacturer, the requirements of either U.S. FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, or United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 95, Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval of Vehicles with Regard to the Protection of the Occupants in the Event of a Lateral Collision. The Department is proposing to harmonize with the United States by referring in TSD No. 301 to the side moving deformable barrier required by FMVSS 214.
The United States conducted a comparison of crash-test results of an FMVSS 301 lateral-impact compliance test and an FMVSS 214 compliance test for the same vehicle model.
According to this analysis, the FMVSS 214 crash test exposes the subject vehicle to higher crush energy and higher crash forces, and to greater changes in velocity than the existing FMVSS 301 test. The data show that the fuel system components are exposed to more stringent forces in the FMVSS 214 test than in the current FMVSS 301 lateral test. Interestingly, only a few vehicles tested to the FMVSS 214 requirements leaked fuel in excess of FMVSS 301's fuel-leakage standards.
The Department is also proposing to harmonize with the upgraded rear impact testing requirements proposed in the United States. (see footnote 8) The proposed testing procedure includes a moving deformable barrier (MDB) of 1 368 kg impacting the rear of the test vehicle at 80 km/h with a 70 percent overlap of the vehicle. The 1 368 kg MDB is the same as the barrier used for FMVSS 214, except that the barrier's face is situated 50 mm lower than the face of the FMVSS 214 barrier to simulate pre-crash braking in rear impact crashes. The lowering of the face of the barrier by 50 mm is consistent with the results of panic braking tests that were performed by the NHTSA as part of its rear underride research.
A thorough review of the crash conditions in rear impact collisions (see footnote 9) revealed a consistent crash and fire scenario: a vehicle is struck in the rear causing loss of fuel from the tank area, which ignites during impact and results in a rapidly spreading fire and occupant fatalities. The NHTSA estimated (see footnote 10) that 72 percent of drivers of all striking vehicles involved in fire-related crashes applied the brakes. The same data indicated that 36 percent of drivers applied the brakes in frontal collisions and 54 percent applied the brakes in side impact crashes.
The proposed upgrades are intended to harmonize U.S. and Canadian regulations while increasing safety. They have been proposed in the United States but have not yet been adopted. (see footnote 11) By pre-publishing these changes in the Canada Gazette at this stage, the Department wants to shorten the delay between the date that the amendments are adopted in the United States and the date that the corresponding amendments are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.
To achieve the Department's aim to align Canada's requirements with those of the United States, it is proposing that this amendment incorporate by reference a TSD. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides the Department with the authority to incorporate foreign enactments by using a TSD. The TSD allows the Department to incorporate the contents of a U.S. regulation in both official languages while providing the opportunity to clearly identify Canadian-specific requirements. As a TSD is incorporated as "amended from time to time," it gives the Department the ability to rapidly align its regulations with those of other foreign governments. The text of the TSD will be based on the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, revised as of October 1, 2000, except for S6.1, S6.2, S6.3, S7.1.6(b), S7.2, S7.3 and Figure 3, which will be based on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2000 (Vol. 65, No. 219, p. 67693). The Department will closely monitor the status of the impending U.S. final rule and make changes to its proposal to ensure harmonization. (see footnote 12)
This amendment does not propose any changes, other than to barrier tires, that affect CMVSS 301.1, LPG Fuel System Integrity, or CMVSS 302.2, CNG Fuel System Integrity. The Department is not proposing to revise CMVSS 305, Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection. These standards will continue to require the current rear impact barrier test speed to be 48 km/h. The Department is specifically requesting comments on the appropriate approach to take in applying the new upgraded testing requirements to dual-fuel and hybrid-electric vehicles.
Effective Date
The Department is proposing that these amendments come into force on the day on which they are registered by the Clerk of the Privy Council. Prior to September 1, 2005, the Department is proposing that, at the choice of the manufacturer, vehicles may conform to the requirements of the current CMVSS 301, or to the new requirements outlined above.
This option is expected to provide manufacturers more than two years to prepare for the upgraded requirements and make design modifications as necessary. The Department anticipates publication of the amendment in Part II of the Canada Gazette before September 1, 2003.
The new specification of the tires to be used on the moving barriers of CMVSS 301.1 and 301.2 would apply on or after September 1, 2005.
Alternatives
In considering whether to harmonize the rear and side impact requirements of CMVSS 301, and the tire specifications of the moving barriers used in CMVSS 301, 301.1 and 301.2, the Department considered three alternatives: maintaining the existing situation unchanged, harmonizing its requirements with those of the United States, or harmonizing its requirements with those of the United Nations ECE.
Maintaining the Status Quo
The typical scenario of a rear impact crash that causes fire-related fatalities and injuries occurs when a vehicle is struck from the rear by another vehicle traveling at high speed. The test procedure described in the current CMVSS 301 accounts for only a portion of these collisions. Not changing the rear-impact test procedure would mean that some high-speed fire-related fatalities would occur that could otherwise be avoided.
Having two separate side impact procedures for CMVSS 214 and 301 forces manufacturers to conduct two separate tests. As most vehicles today are designed to sustain the more stringent side impact requirements of FMVSS 214, maintaining the status quo would be equivalent to imposing an unnecessary economic burden on manufacturers.
Keeping the status quo on tires would essentially mean referring to a design that is virtually obsolete. The bias-ply tires required on the moving barriers of CMVSS 301, 301.1 and 301.2 are no longer readily available. In 1999, for example, radial tire shipments comprised 99.8 percent of the tire replacement market.
Harmonization with U.S. Requirements
In order to facilitate trade and minimize the economic burden of compliance on the automotive industry, the Department harmonizes its regulatory requirements with those of the United States and other jurisdictions whenever doing so will maintain or improve safety. In this instance, U.S. data and research activities in the field of fuel system integrity demonstrate that harmonization is an avenue that the Department should pursue.
Harmonization will increase the fuel system integrity of vehicles. This would result in safety improvements and a decrease in burn-related fatalities from rear impacts, which account for the majority of burn-related fatalities. The Department does not expect any improvement in side impact safety, as most vehicles already meet the proposed standard.
Harmonization with the Requirements of the Economic Commission for Europe
ECE Regulation No. 34, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles with Regard to the Prevention of Fire Risks (01 Series, Amendment 1, January 29, 1979) contains the requirements for the prevention of fires in passenger cars.
ECE Reg. No. 34 requires a 48 to 53 km/h frontal fixed barrier impact test and a 35 to 38 km/h rear moving flat rigid barrier impact test. The ECE test device weighs 1 100 ± 20 kg. As an option, at the choice of the manufacturer, a pendulum may also be used as the impactor. ECE Reg. No. 34 does not require a rollover test. CMVSS 301 requires a rollover test for vehicles with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less. The ECE standard requires a hydraulic internal pressure test for all fuel tanks and special tests (impact resistance, mechanical strength and fire resistance) for plastic fuel tanks. In terms of test performance, the ECE standard limits fuel spillage to 30 g/min., compared with 28 g/min. in the current Canadian regulation.
In summary, CMVSS 301 applies to more vehicle classes and to higher vehicle masses than ECE Reg. No. 34. The Canadian safety standard also requires testing in all crash modes (frontal, side, rear and rollover). ECE Reg. No. 34 requires only frontal and rear impact tests. CMVSS 301 uses a much heavier moving barrier for impact tests than the ECE standard (1 814 kg vs. 1 100 kg). However, CMVSS 301 does not specify a hydraulic pressure test for fuel tanks, a battery retention requirement, or additional tests for plastic fuel tanks; ECE Reg. No. 34 does. In addition, ECE Reg. No. 34 requires that "no fire maintained by the fuel shall occur" and does not allow failure of the battery securing device due to the impact. ECE Reg. No. 34 also requires filling the impacted vehicle's fuel tank "either with fuel or with a non-flammable liquid." In practice, the ECE tests are conducted with the fuel tank filled with non-flammable liquid.
Given the number of significant differences, the Department believes that adopting the requirements of ECE Reg. No. 34 would be equivalent to lowering Canadian fuel system integrity requirements. As the intent of this amendment is to further improve fuel system integrity, the department is not proposing to adopt the ECE regulation as an alternative testing requirement.
Benefits and Costs
As already mentioned, a U.S. study (see footnote 13) of 293 fatalities from fire-related crashes determined whether each death was caused by the fire or by blunt trauma and analyzed the specific crash conditions that caused the fire. Twenty-two percent of the 293 occupant fatalities were due to burn-related trauma, while the remaining 78 percent were due to impact-related trauma. The subset of the 22 percent burn-related trauma occupant fatalities was categorized by crash type. The resulting distribution shows that 46 percent of the fatalities occurred from rear impacts, 23 percent from front impacts, 15 percent from side impacts, 11 percent from rollover crashes, and 5 percent from "other" impact types.
In Canada, an analysis of Traffic Accident Information Data (TRAID) between 1994 and 1999 shows that about 63 fatalities (see footnote 14) per year occur in passenger cars and light vehicles that were towed away from a fire. Applying the U.S. statistics in the preceding paragraph to Canadian statistics indicates that 13 Canadian fatalities could be caused by fire each year and that 6 of those fatalities could result from a rear impact. In the United States, they estimated 57 fatalities (see footnote 15) in the same target population. The United States estimates that 8 to 21 lives will be saved annually, once all vehicles on the road meet the proposed rear-impact test. Using the same assumptions in Canada, the estimated benefits would range from 1 to 2 lives saved annually. Based on the average cost of life of $1.9 million, the estimated savings would be in the order of $1.9 million to $3.8 million.
The benefits of an upgraded CMVSS 301 side-impact test could not be quantified. The proposed requirements would be stricter, but manufacturers would not have to certify their vehicles to two different regulations, because the requirements for FMVSS 214 and CMVSS 301 would be equivalent. More importantly, a U.S. study (see footnote 16) has shown that only one out of more than 100 vehicles tested failed the proposed fuel leakage standards using the proposed test procedure. Based on those test results, it appears that few vehicles would have to be modified to pass the proposed side-impact test. The cost of these modifications would be more than offset by the cost saving involved in harmonizing the U.S. and Canadian requirements. The Department estimates that manufacturers will save approximately $40,000 per new model in reduced testing costs. Without harmonization, manufacturers would have to test vehicles to a unique Canadian standard. The rear-impact test costs approximately the same amount as the side-impact test; assuming an estimated 45 to 65 vehicle model redesigns per year, conducting both tests would require the manufacturer to spend an estimated total of $3.6 to $5.2 million per year.
The NHTSA has prepared a Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation describing the economic and other effects of this proposal. They noted that the average cost for vehicles that would need to be modified to meet the proposed rear impact requirements is $5 per vehicle. Based on their estimate that 46 percent of the fleet does not currently meet the proposal and on an expected 15.2 million total sales, they estimate that the total cost for the fleet would be $35 million annually. In Canadian dollars, this would be approximately $8 per vehicle for 46 percent of an estimated 1.4 million total sales. Thus the Department estimates that the total equivalent cost for the Canadian fleet would be $5 million annually.
The Department estimates the cost of updating the Canadian fleet of vehicles to be compliant with the proposed amendment to be $5 million, compared with a cost of $5.5 to $9 million if the Canadian regulation is not amended. The Department is proposing these amendments based on the favourable balance of costs and the improved consumer protection benefit offered by this amendment.
The tires recommended in the tire upgrade amendment to CMVSS 301.1 and 301.2 are more readily available than those currently specified in the regulations; they are also widely recommended by voluntary standards organizations for use by vehicle manufacturers for testing. Accordingly, there would be no increase in the costs for tires used for testing, and no impact is anticipated on the ability to conduct valid tests. Thus the Department estimates that the costs would remain unchanged.
Consultation
Road Safety Consultation Mechanisms
The Department has instituted a systematic and extensive consultation process that is intended to keep the automotive industry, public safety organizations, and the general public informed of planned and recently made changes to the regulatory requirements governing motor vehicle safety in Canada and that provides a mechanism to comment on these initiatives. Three times a year, departmental representatives meet with the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, whose members include DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc.; Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited; and General Motors of Canada Limited. The Department also meets three times a year with the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (AIAMC), which represents international manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles. (see footnote 17) In addition, once a year, the members of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) join the AIAMC meeting. The AAM is a trade association of 13 car and light-truck manufacturers whose members account for more than 90 percent of U.S. vehicle sales. (see footnote 18) Semi-annual meetings are also held with the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council, the Rubber Association of Canada, and the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association. (see footnote 19)
These automotive industry meetings allow manufacturers and importers to respond to proposed changes to the regulations for which the Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate is responsible, to raise problems with the existing requirements, and to discuss any matters of concern to the member companies. On a quarterly basis, these associations receive a copy of the Directorate's Regulatory Plan, which outlines all contemplated changes to the governing safety requirements and tracks initiatives as they are developed and published in the Canada Gazette, and as the new regulations come into force.
The Department also consults with the federal authorities of other countries and with Canada's provinces and territories. Since the harmonization of regulatory requirements between Canada and the U.S. is pivotal to trade between the two countries and to the competitiveness of Canada's automotive industry, semi-annual meetings are held with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These meetings provide a valuable opportunity to discuss future regulatory initiatives and problems of mutual interest.
The Department is also committed to the development of global regulations, which is being carried out under the auspices of the United Nations World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. Along with members of other world regulatory bodies and public interest groups, Departmental representatives participate in 11 or more meetings a year as part of the initiative to develop Global Technical Regulations in order to simplify the regulatory process for automotive manufacturers who market their products internationally.
Consultation with the provinces and territories takes place mainly through the Department's membership in the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA). Its Board of Directors meet a minimum of twice a year, as do the three standing committees of the CCMTA, which are comprised of officials from each member jurisdiction who deal with a broad range of short- and long-term issues.
In addition to the foregoing consultation mechanisms, which involve the automotive industry and other government agencies, the Department also holds meetings twice a year with national public safety organizations to consult with them on future regulatory changes and to discuss emerging safety problems. Thirty or more such organizations are invited to each of these meetings; organizations that include drivers' and automobile associations, bus operators, the insurance industry, consumer associations, health and police organizations, the Canada Safety Council, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, the Canadian Automobile Association, MADD Canada, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These organizations also receive copies of the Directorate's Regulatory Plan on a quarterly basis.
In order to monitor public opinion and concerns, as well as to keep the public informed on road safety-related issues, the Department offers a free telephone information service that Canadians may call from across the country, and it publishes specific safety-related information on its Web site. The public may also make inquiries using the Department's Web site and by regular mail. In addition, a dedicated toll-free telephone line allows the public to notify the Department of safety-related defects, which are subsequently investigated by the Public Complaints, Recalls and Investigations Division. As part of its research program, the Department has established several teams of collision investigators that are affiliated with major universities, part of whose work is to monitor road safety issues. A system for training instructors on the proper installation of infant and child restraint systems has also been implemented, and the instructors advise the Department of the safety issues that arise.
This consultation process enables the Department to identify and respond to safety-related problems in a timely fashion. More important, it keeps the public, the automotive industry, and public safety organizations abreast of the Department's many regulatory initiatives and provides opportunities for all concerned to participate in the development of new motor vehicle safety measures.
Specific Fuel System Integrity Consultation
Motor vehicle manufacturers have requested, during their regular meetings, that the Department harmonize CMVSS 301 with the proposed amendments to FMVSS 301. Manufacturers have made this request because they wish to be able to complete one testing procedure for both Canada and the United States. Completing just one test will reduce the cost and time involved in certifying new vehicle models. The Department, aware of this desire of the industry to reduce certification cost and time, is proposing these amendments prior to completion of the final U.S. regulation. Stakeholders are invited to comment on this amendment following pre-publication in the Canada Gazette.
A consultation period of seventy-five days will follow the publication of this proposal in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Comments may be made by writing to the address given below or at any government-industry meeting. 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 Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 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.
Eric Gagné, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5, (613) 998-1940 (Telephone), (613) 990-2913 (Facsimile), Regsclerkcommis@tc.gc.ca (Electronic mail).
Copies of proposed Technical Standards Document No. 301, "Fuel System Integrity," may be obtained on the Internet at: www.tc.gc.ca/RoadSafety/mvstm_tsd/index_e.htm.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (see footnote d) , that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 5 (see footnote e) and subsection 11(1) of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Fuel System Integrity).
Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Transport 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 sent to Eric Gagné, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 8th Floor, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5. (Tel: (613) 998-1940; fax: (613) 990-2913; e-mail: gagnee@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, December 12, 2002
EILEEN BOYD
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY)
AMENDMENTS
1. Section 301 of Schedule IV to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 20) is replaced by the following:
General
301. (1) A vehicle with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less that is equipped with a fuel system that uses a fuel with a boiling point of 0°C or higher as a source of energy for its propulsion shall meet the requirements of Technical Standards Document No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as TSD 301).
(2) A school bus with a GVWR of more than 4 536 kg that is equipped with a fuel system that uses a fuel with a boiling point of 0°C or higher as a source of energy for its propulsion shall meet the requirements of TSD 301.
(3) Instead of complying with subsection (1), until August 31, 2005, a vehicle may meet the fuel spillage requirements set out in subsections (4) and (5) when tested in accordance with Test Method 301 — Fuel System Integrity (February 8, 2001) and without being altered during the test sequence, which consists of the following:
(a) a fixed collision barrier that is at any angle of up to 30° in either direction to the perpendicular to the vehicle's line of travel being impacted by the vehicle while the vehicle is travelling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 48 km/h;
(b) a collision barrier travelling at 48 km/h impacting the vehicle from the rear; and
(c) a collision barrier travelling at 32 km/h impacting the vehicle laterally on either side.
(4) In the case of a vehicle tested in accordance with subsection (3), fuel spillage after each impact shall not exceed
(a) 28 g from the moment of impact until motion of the vehicle ceases;
(b) a total of 142 g during the five-minute period after motion of the vehicle ceases; or
(c) 28 g during any one-minute interval for the subsequent 25-minute period.
(5) In the case of a vehicle tested in accordance with subsection (3), when it is rotated, following each barrier crash test, on its longitudinal axis to each successive increment of 90°, fuel spillage, from the onset of rotational motion, shall not exceed
-
(a) a total of 142 g during the first five minutes of testing at each successive increment of 90°; or
(b) 28 g during any one-minute interval for the remaining testing period, at each increment of 90°.
Expiry Date
(6) This section expires five years after the day on which it comes into force.
2. Subsection 301.1(5) of Schedule IV to the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(5) Despite paragraph 3.8.4 of Test Method 301.1 — LPG Fuel System Integrity (February 8, 2001), on or after September 1, 2005, the moving barrier assembly shall be equipped with P215/75R15 pneumatic tires inflated to 221 kPa or with P205/75R15 pneumatic tires inflated to 207 kPa.
3. Subsection 301.2(6) of Schedule IV to the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(6) Despite paragraph 3.8.4 of Test Method 301.2 — CNG Fuel System Integrity (February 8, 2001), on or after September 1, 2005, the moving barrier assembly shall be equipped with P215/75R15 pneumatic tires inflated to 221 kPa or with P205/75R15 pneumatic tires inflated to 207 kPa.
COMING INTO FORCE
4. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
[50-1-o]
S.C. 1988, c. 28
S.C. 1992, c. 35, s. 98
S.C. 1992, c. 35, s. 101
SOR/95-187
Data taken from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for 1998. These fatalities included deaths due to burns and/or impact injuries, but not those due to asphyxiation.
This number was extrapolated to cover all of Canada, since some provinces do not report vehicle events.
A "moderate" fire is defined as fire damage to between 25 and 50 percent of the vehicle surface; a "severe" fire has fire damage to between 50 and 75 percent of the vehicle surface; and a "very severe" fire has fire damage to more than 75 percent of the of the vehicle surface.
"Fuel System Integrity Upgrade—NASS & FARS Case Study," DOT Contract No. DTNH-22-92-D-07064, March 1994.
This study is summarized in the paper, "A Case Study of 214 Fatal Crashes Involving Fire," by Carl Ragland and Hsi-Sheng Hsia, Paper No. 98-S4-O-08, 16th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Windsor, Ontario, June 1998.
The changes to the rear- and side-impact requirements of FMVSS 301 were published in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in the Federal Register, Volume 65, No. 219, on November 13, 2000.
The changes to the rear and side impact requirements of FMVSS 301 were published in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in the Federal Register, Volume 65, No. 219, on November 13, 2000.
This study is summarized in the paper, "A Case Study of 214 Fatal Crashes Involving Fire," by Carl Ragland and Hsi-Sheng Hsia. See note 5.
Annualized estimates from NASS-CDS 1995 to 1999 data regarding the frequency of braking by the drivers of striking vehicles in impact crashes involving two light vehicles.
The changes to the rear and side impact requirements of FMVSS 301 were published in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in the Federal Register, Volume 65, No. 219, on November 13, 2000. The changes to the tire specifications of FMVSS 301 have been published in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register, Volume 66, No. 196, on October 10, 2001.
The Motor Vehicle Safety Act details the conditions that the Department must fulfill before exercising its regulatory power. The regulations have to be republished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, if a change that is substantial in nature is added to a regulatory proposal after that proposal has been published in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Referring to a U.S. NPRM is intended to accelerate the harmonization process between the United States and Canada, but a possible drawback of this approach is that a regulatory proposal may have to be pre-published twice, if the differences between the U.S. NPRM and the final rule are substantive.
This study is summarized in the paper, "A Case Study of 214 Fatal Crashes Involving Fire," by Carl Ragland and Hsi-Sheng Hsia. See note 5.
This number was extrapolated to cover all of Canada, since some provinces do not report vehicle events.
Data taken from the NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, FMVSS No. 301 Upgrade, November 2000.
Data taken from the NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, FMVSS No. 301 Upgrade, November 2000.
The AIAMC represents the following automotive manufacturers and importers: BMW Canada Inc., Daewoo Auto Canada Inc., Honda Canada Inc., Hyundai Auto Canada, KIA Canada Inc., Mazda Canada Inc., Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc., Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc., Nissan Canada Inc., Porsche Cars Canada Ltd., Subaru Canada Inc., Suzuki Canada Inc., Toyota Canada Inc., and Volkswagen Canada Inc.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers represents BMW Group; Daimler-Chrysler; Fiat Auto R&D USA; Ford Motor Company; General Motors; Isuzu Motors America, Inc.; Mazda North American Operations; Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.; Nissan; Porsche Cars North America, Inc.; Toyota; Volkswagen of America, Inc.; and Volvo Car Corporation.
The Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association represents the manufacturers and importers of infant and child restraint systems.
S.C. 1993, c. 16
S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 351
C.R.C., c. 1038
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).
