Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 155, Number 45: GOVERNMENT NOTICES
November 6, 2021
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
Publication after screening assessment of 10 substances of the Flame Retardants Group specified on the Domestic Substances List (paragraphs 68(b) and (c) or subsection 77(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)
Whereas BPDP, IDDP, IPPP and TBOEP are substances identified under subsection 73(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;
Whereas a summary of the draft screening assessment conducted on TPHP, BDMEPPP, TEP, TEHP, BEHP and TDBDPB pursuant to paragraphs 68(b) and (c) of the Act and on the remaining four substances pursuant to section 74 of the Act is annexed hereby;
And whereas it is proposed to conclude that TPHP, BPDP, BDMEPPP, IDDP, IPPP and TEP meet one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,
Notice therefore is hereby given that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health (the ministers) propose to recommend to Her Excellency the Governor in Council that these substances be added to Schedule 1 to the Act.
Notice is furthermore given that the ministers have released a risk management scope document for these substances to initiate discussions with stakeholders on the development of risk management actions.
And whereas it is proposed to conclude that TBOEP, TEHP, BEHP and TDBDPB do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act,
Notice therefore is hereby given that the ministers propose to take no further action on TBOEP at this time under section 77 of the Act.
Notice is further given that the ministers propose to take no further action on TEHP, BEHP and TDBDPB at this time.
Notice is hereby given that options are being considered for follow-up activities to track changes in exposure to TBOEP and TDBDPB.
Public comment period
Any person may, within 60 days after publication of this notice, file with the Minister of the Environment written comments on the measure the ministers propose to take and on the scientific considerations on the basis of which the measure is proposed. More information regarding the scientific considerations may be obtained from the Canada.ca (Chemical Substances) website. All comments must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and be addressed to the Executive Director, Program Development and Engagement Division, Department of the Environment, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3, by email to substances@ec.gc.ca, or by using the online reporting system available through Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Single Window.
In accordance with section 313 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, any person who provides information in response to this notice may submit with the information a request that it be treated as confidential.
Jacqueline Gonçalves
Director General
Science and Risk Assessment Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment
Gwen Goodier
Director General
Industrial Sectors and Chemicals Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment
David Morin
Director General
Safe Environments Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of Health
ANNEX
Summary of the draft screening assessment of the Flame Retardants Group
Pursuant to section 68 or 74 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have conducted a screening assessment of 10 of 13 substances referred to collectively as the Flame Retardants Group. These 13 substances were identified as priorities for assessment. Of the 13 substances, 3 were determined to be of low concern through a separate approach, and decisions for these substances are provided in a separate report. footnote 1 Accordingly, this screening assessment addresses the 10 substances listed in the table below, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Flame Retardants Group. The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers (CAS RNs footnote 2), the Domestic Substances List (DSL) names, the common names and abbreviations of these substances are listed in the table below. The substances in this group have been assessed under two subgroups (aryl organophosphates and alkyl organophosphates), with the exception of one substance, which has been assessed as an individual substance, as shown in the table below.
| CAS RN | DSL name | Common names (abbreviation) | Subgroup |
|---|---|---|---|
| 115-86-6 table 1 note a | Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester | Triphenyl phosphate (TPHP) | Aryl organophosphate |
| 56803-37-3 | Phosphoric acid, (1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl diphenyl ester | Tert-butylphenyl diphenyl phosphate (BPDP) | Aryl organophosphate |
| 65652-41-7 table 1 note a | Phosphoric acid, bis[(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl] phenyl ester | Bis(tert-butylphenyl) phenyl phosphate (BDMEPPP) | Aryl organophosphate |
| 29761-21-5 | Phosphoric acid, isodecyl diphenyl ester | Isodecyl diphenyl phosphate (IDDP) | Aryl organophosphate |
| 68937-41-7 table 1 note b | Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) | Isopropylated triphenyl phosphate (IPPP) | Aryl organophosphate |
| 78-40-0 table 1 note c | Phosphoric acid, triethyl ester | Triethylphosphate; triethyl phosphate (TEP) | Alkyl organophosphate |
| 78-51-3 | Ethanol, 2-butoxy-, phosphate (3:1) | Tris(2-butoxethyl) phosphate (TBOEP) | Alkyl organophosphate |
| 78-42-2 table 1 note c | Phosphoric acid, tris(2-ethylhexyl) ester | Tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP) | Alkyl organophosphate |
| 298-07-7 table 1 note c | Phosphoric acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester | Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate; bis(2-ethylhexyl) hydrogen phosphate (BEHP) |
Alkyl organophosphate |
| 58965-66-5 table 1 note a | Benzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrabromo-3,6-bis(pentabromophenoxy)- | Tetradecabromo-1,4-diphenoxybenzene; perbromo-1,4-diphenoxybenzene (TDBDPB) | Not applicable |
Table 1 note(s)
|
|||
None of the substances in this group occur naturally. According to information submitted in response to surveys issued pursuant to section 71 of CEPA for the reporting years of 2008, 2011, and/or 2015, none of the aryl organophosphates (OP) were manufactured in Canada. The ranges for total imports into Canada during these years were from 100 000 kg to 1 000 000 kg for TPHP, BPDP and IPPP, and from 10 000 kg to 100 000 kg for BDMEPPP and IDDP. For the alkyl OP substances, TBOEP and BEHP were each reported to be manufactured in Canada in a quantity ranging from 1 000 kg to 10 000 kg in 2011. For that same year, reported total TEP imports into Canada ranged from 100 000 kg to 1 000 000 kg, while reported total TBOEP, TEHP and BEHP imports into Canada ranged from 10 000 kg to 100 000 kg. TDBDPB was not reported to be manufactured in Canada, but was imported and used in Canada in 2008 (< 10 000 kg). The major North American producer of TDBDPB is reported to have discontinued manufacture of this substance prior to 2012, and TDBDPB is not currently imported or used in Canada.
In Canada, the alkyl and aryl OPs subject to this assessment are primarily used as either additive flame retardants or plasticizers in various applications involving hydraulic fluids, plastics, rubber products, textiles, foam, paints, adhesives and sealants, and building materials. Some of these substances are also used in food packaging applications (TPHP, IDDP, TEP, TEHP, TBOEP) and foam (TEP) and as formulants in pest control products (TPHP, IPPP, TEHP). TPHP is also used in nail care products in Canada. TDBDPB is an additive flame retardant that has been used in plastic and rubber in Canada.
Aryl OP subgroup substances are not expected to be persistent in water, soil, sediment or air based on modelled and experimental data. However, TPHP has been measured in remote locations (e.g. Canadian and European Arctic) possibly due to particle-bound atmospheric transport and is considered persistent in air. Aryl OPs bioconcentration studies, metabolism studies, and bioaccumulation modelling suggest that TPHP, BPDP, and IDDP will have low to moderate bioaccumulation potential. For the more hydrophobic BDMEPPP, and possibly IPPP (depending on UVCB mixture), moderate to high bioaccumulation potential is identified by measured and predicted data.
Based on the available empirical ecotoxicity studies and modelled data, aryl OPs subject to this assessment are considered to be highly toxic to aquatic organisms, with acute and chronic effects demonstrated at less than 1 mg/L. Sediment and soil toxicity data are limited for the individual substances. However, TPHP/BPDP/BDMEPPP mixture and IPPP UVCB tests provide evidence of moderate to high toxicity in those media as well. There are limited toxicity data on terrestrial wildlife that clearly measure organism effect levels for aryl OPs. Recent studies suggest that these substances may induce neurobehavioural and developmental effects in biota, as well as other effects, including disruption to reproductive and endocrine systems.
It is expected that the aryl OPs in this group may be released to the Canadian environment through industrial processing activities, releases from products used by consumers, wastewater discharges to surface waters, and biosolids application to land. Given the likelihood of the substances being used together or interchangeably for the identified uses, and considering their common properties, aryl OP substance quantities were combined into a total quantity for each use to develop combined ecological exposure scenarios. Risk quotient analyses integrating estimates of exposure and toxicity information were performed for scenarios involving industrial releases and releases from products used by consumers. These analyses indicated that there is a risk of harm to aquatic and sediment organisms and to wildlife consuming aryl OP subgroup substances via fish. Based on current aryl OP uses, the analysis indicated a low risk of harm to soil organisms.
For the ecological assessment of the alkyl OP subgroup, TEP, TEHP, and BEHP were characterized using the ecological risk classification of organic substances (ERC), which is a risk-based approach that employs multiple metrics for both hazard and exposure, with weighted consideration of multiple lines of evidence for determining risk classification. Hazard profiles are based principally on metrics regarding mode of toxic action, chemical reactivity, food web–derived internal toxicity thresholds, bioavailability, and chemical and biological activity. Metrics considered in the exposure profiles include potential emission rate, overall persistence, and long-range transport potential. A risk matrix is used to assign a low, moderate or high level of potential concern about substances on the basis of their hazard and exposure profiles. Based on the outcome of ERC analysis, substances in the alkyl OP subgroup, TEP, TEHP and BEHP, are considered unlikely to be causing ecological harm. Therefore, only TBOEP is addressed in the ecological portion of the alkyl OP assessment.
Based on modelled and limited experimental data, TBOEP is not shown to be persistent in water, soil, sediment or air. However, it has been measured in the Canadian Arctic, indicating sufficient persistence for long-range transport. TBOEP shows a low potential to bioaccumulate or biomagnify in biota and is considered to have a moderate to high level of toxicity to aquatic organisms, with acute and chronic effects demonstrated from approximately less than 1.0 to 100 mg/L and a moderate level of toxicity to soil organisms, based on limited data. Exposure scenarios were developed for releases from industrial activities and to surface water from products available to consumers. Risk quotient analyses, comparing conservative estimates of exposure with the available toxicity information, were performed and showed a low potential for risk to aquatic and soil organisms from TBOEP.
TDBDPB is extremely hydrophobic and persistent, but may be susceptible to photolytic degradation, producing lower brominated polybrominated diphenoxybenzenes (PBDPBs). TDBDPB is considered to have limited bioavailability and bioaccumulation potential. However, model-based bioconcentration and bioaccumulation factors for two phototransformation products of TDBDPB (PBDPBs with four and five bromine atoms) indicate a very high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. The bioavailable/bioaccumulative products of debromination (e.g. PBDPBs with four and five bromine atoms) of TDBDPB are expected to have a much higher potential for inherent toxicity. There is a low potential for risk to the Canadian environment from TDBDPB given that there is no known importation or use of this substance in Canada at this time.
Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this draft screening assessment, there is a risk of harm to the environment from TPHP, BPDP, BDMEPPP, IDDP and IPPP. It is proposed to conclude that TPHP, BPDP, BDMEPPP, IDDP and IPPP meet the criteria under paragraph 64(a) of CEPA as they are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity. However, it is proposed to conclude that TPHP, BPDP, BDMEPPP, IDDP and IPPP do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(b) of CEPA, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends. Further, it is proposed to conclude that TBOEP, TEP, TEHP, BEHP and TDBDPB do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(a) or (b) of CEPA, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.
For the human health assessment, BDMEPPP was evaluated using the approach applied in the Rapid Screening of Substances with Limited General Population Exposure. The potential for exposure of the general population to BDMEPPP was considered to be negligible. Therefore, BDMEPPP is considered to be a low concern for human health at current levels of exposure.
Based on laboratory studies, the critical health effects for the aryl OP subgroup include decreased body weight gain for TPHP, organ weight changes for BPDP, adverse adrenal gland and liver effects for IPPP, and liver effects for IDDP. No reproductive or developmental effects were observed for TPHP, BPDP or IDDP. Reproductive effects were observed after exposure to IPPP. The general population in Canada is exposed to TPHP and IPPP from environmental media and food, to BPDP from environmental media, and to all three of these substances from lying on foam-containing mattresses or furniture. Children may also be exposed to these substances while mouthing toys and foam in products such as nap mats and changing table pads. For IDDP, Canadians are expected to be exposed from environmental media only. TPHP is also present in various nail care products such as nail polish. Comparisons of estimated levels of exposure to TPHP, BPDP and IDDP and critical effect levels result in margins that are considered to be adequate to address uncertainties in the exposure and health effects databases. For IPPP, the resulting margins associated with exposure from contact with environmental media and food, as well as from mouthing certain foam-containing products, such as foam toys, and from sitting in infant or child restraint seats, are considered adequate. However, the margins associated with prolonged skin contact to IPPP for infants and children lying on foam-containing mattresses or furniture are considered potentially inadequate to account for uncertainties in the exposure and health effects databases.
For the alkyl OP subgroup, based on laboratory studies, the critical health effects include liver effects for TEP, liver effects in males for TBOEP, thyroid effects for TEHP, and liver effects for BEHP. The general population in Canada may be exposed to these substances from dust (TEP, TBOEP, TEHP), indoor air (TEP, TBOEP, TEHP), drinking water (TEP, TBOEP, BEHP), food (TBOEP), and breast milk (TBOEP), and from the use of products available to consumers, including foam-containing mattresses or furniture (TEP, TBOEP), infant and child restraint seats (TEP, TBOEP), and all-purpose remover for oven cleaning (TEP), floor sealant (TEHP) and gear oil (BEHP). Children may also be exposed from mouthing foam in toys or products containing TEP or TBOEP that are available to consumers. A comparison of estimated levels of exposure to TBOEP, TEHP and BEHP and critical effect levels results in margins of exposure that are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the exposure and health effects databases. For TEP, the resulting margins of exposure associated with exposure to environmental media and food as well as to all-purpose remover and foam sealant are considered adequate. However, the margins associated with prolonged skin contact to TEP from lying on foam-containing mattresses or furniture (all ages) and from sitting in infant or child restraint seats are considered potentially inadequate to account for uncertainties in the exposure and health effects databases.
Exposure of the general population to TDBDPB through environmental media, food, or the use of products available to consumers is not expected. Accordingly, the potential risk to human health is considered to be low.
Considering all the information presented in this draft screening assessment, it is proposed to conclude that IPPP and TEP meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA as they are entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
Considering all the information presented in the draft screening assessment, it is proposed to conclude that TPHP, BPDP, BDMEPPP, IDDP, TBOEP, TEHP, BEHP and TDBDPB do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
Proposed overall conclusion
It is therefore proposed to conclude that TPHP, BPDP, BDMEPPP, IDDP, IPPP and TEP meet one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA, and that TBOEP, TEHP, BEHP and TDBDPB do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA. It is also proposed to conclude that TPHP and TEP meet the persistence criteria but do not meet the bioaccumulation criteria; BPDP and IDDP do not meet the persistence criteria or the bioaccumulation criteria; and BDMEPPP and IPPP do not meet the persistence criteria, but do meet the bioaccumulation criteria as set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA.
Consideration for follow-up
While exposure of the environment to TBOEP and TDBDPB is not of concern at current levels, these substances are associated with ecological effects of concern. Therefore, there may be concern if exposure were to increase. Follow-up activities to track changes in exposure or commercial use patterns are under consideration.
Stakeholders are encouraged to provide, during the 60-day public comment period on the draft screening assessment, any information pertaining to these substances that may help inform the choice of follow-up activity. This could include information on new or planned import, manufacture or use of these substances, if the information has not previously been submitted to the ministers.
The draft screening assessment and the risk management scope document for these substances are available on the Canada.ca (Chemical Substances) website.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
Publication of results of investigations and recommendations for a substance — phenol, methylstyrenated (MSP), CAS RN footnote 2 68512-30-1 — specified on the Domestic Substances List (paragraphs 68(b) and (c) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)
Whereas a summary of the draft screening assessment conducted on MSP pursuant to paragraphs 68(b) and (c) of the Act is annexed hereby;
And whereas it is proposed to conclude that the substance meets one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Act;
Notice therefore is hereby given that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health (the ministers) propose to recommend to Her Excellency the Governor in Council that this substance be added to Schedule 1 to the Act,
Notice is furthermore given that the ministers have released a risk management scope document for this substance to initiate discussions with stakeholders on the development of risk management options.
Public comment period
Any person may, within 60 days after publication of this notice, file with the Minister of the Environment written comments on the measure the ministers propose to take and on the scientific considerations on the basis of which the measure is proposed. More information regarding the scientific considerations may be obtained from the Canada.ca (Chemical Substances) website. All comments must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and be addressed to the Executive Director, Program Development and Engagement Division, Department of the Environment, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3 by email to substances@ec.gc.ca, or by using the online reporting system available through Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Single Window.
In accordance with section 313 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, any person who provides information in response to this notice may submit with the information a request that it be treated as confidential.
Jacqueline Gonçalves
Director General
Science and Risk Assessment Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment
Cécile Siewe
Director General
Industrial Sectors and Chemicals Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment
David Morin
Director General
Safe Environments Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of Health
ANNEX
Summary of the draft screening assessment of phenol, methylstyrenated
Pursuant to section 68 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have conducted a screening assessment of phenol, methylstyrenated (CAS RN 68512-30-1), hereinafter referred to as MSP.
MSP was previously assessed as part of the Final Screening Assessment Report for Potentially Toxic Substances in 2008. As no exposure to humans or the environment was expected based on information available at the time, it was concluded that MSP did not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA, as it was not posing a risk to humans or the environment. However, it was determined that new activities could result in exposure to humans or the environment, potentially causing a risk. Therefore, this substance has been subject to the Significant New Activity (SNAc) provisions specified under subsection 81(3) of CEPA since 2008.
From 2015 to 2018, there were multiple Significant New Activity Notifications (SNANs) received in response to the SNAc provisions applied to MSP. These notifications have not indicated intent to manufacture this substance in Canada, but the total notified imports are in the range of 10 000 kg to 100 000 kg per year. The major proposed use of this substance specified in these notifications is for paints and coatings on ships and large equipment. Outcomes from evaluation of the SNANs suggest that releases of MSP may pose a risk to the environment. Given indication of increasing use in Canada, it was determined that potential risk to the environment and human health should be further evaluated in a screening assessment, pursuant to section 68 of the Act.
MSP is an organic substance of unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products and biological material (UVCB), which consists of oligomerization and alkylation reaction products of 2-phenylpropene (C9 monomer) and phenol. More significant components of MSP are expected to be a phenol with 1 to 3 methylstyrenated substituents, and dimers and trimers of C9 monomer. The proportions of these components can vary in commercially manufactured MSP under the same CAS RN. In MSP imported into Canada, the composition is dominated by three major components: mono- and dimethylstyrenated phenol and dimers of C9 monomer.
On the basis of empirical data and model predictions, the major components of MSP are not expected to degrade rapidly in the environment; dimethylstyrenated phenol and dimers of C9 monomer are also expected to bioaccumulate in organisms. Empirical effects data suggest that these major components are highly toxic to aquatic organisms. Some components are also associated with endocrine estrogenic activity and endocrine effects on organisms. Environmental exposure associated with the notified uses was predicted based on data submitted in notifications. Outcomes from the ecological risk characterization for MSP indicate that releases of this substance from notified uses may pose a risk to aquatic organisms.
Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this draft screening assessment, there is a risk of harm to the environment from MSP. It is proposed to conclude that MSP meets the criteria under paragraph 64(a) of CEPA, as it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity. However, it is proposed to conclude that MSP does not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(b) of CEPA, as it is not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.
The general population is not directly exposed to MSP from its use in industrial applications; however, the substance may be released to surface water and the general population may be exposed via drinking water consumption. A comparison of the estimated exposure to MSP from drinking water and critical effect levels results in margins of exposure that are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure databases.
Considering all the information presented in this draft screening assessment, it is proposed to conclude that MSP does not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA, as it is not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
Proposed overall conclusion
It is therefore proposed to conclude that MSP meets one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA. It is also proposed that MSP meets the criteria for persistence and bioaccumulation as set out in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA.
The draft screening assessment and the risk management scope document for this substance are available on the Canada.ca (Chemical Substances) website.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
Notice of exemption from the Collision Regulations
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 10(4) of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (the “Act”), that the Minister of Transport has issued the following exemption letter pursuant to subsection 10(2.1) of the Act.
Aaron McCrorie
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister
Safety and Security
Exemption from the Collision Regulations
Classes of vessels: Vessels from Algoma, Canada Steamship Lines, Groupe Desgagnés and Fednav voluntarily participating in the Marine Acoustic Research Station Project.
Effective Date: September 22, 2021
Expiry Date: November 7, 2021
This Exemption letter authorizes vessels from Algoma, Canada Steamship Lines, Groupe Desgagnés and Fednav voluntarily participating in the Marine Acoustic Research Station Project to fulfill their obligations under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, in a manner that does not comply with Rule 10 of the Collision Regulations.
CONDITIONS
- (a) Vessels must not participate in the project during restricted visibility (2 nautical miles or less) or between sunset and sunrise;
- (b) Vessels must refrain from participating if vessels are fishing in the area of the project;
- (c) Vessels must plan their passage through the project zone in a manner to avoid any meeting/crossing situation or overtaking of another vessel from the moment that the vessel enters the separation zone until the vessel rejoins the traffic lane;
- (d) Vessels must report by radio to the Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) “Escoumins Traffic” prior to their entry in the separation zone to confirm that all the conditions above are respected and to obtain an authorization from MCTS to proceed with the manoeuvre.
Note: This Exemption letter in no way reduces the vessel’s, the applicant’s or any other person’s responsibility to comply with any other requirements of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and regulations made under it that are not specifically addressed in this letter.
INNOVATION, SCIENCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CANADA
RADIOCOMMUNICATION ACT
Notice No. SMSE-014-21 — Extension to the reply comment period: Consultation on Updates to the Licensing and Fee Framework for Earth Stations and Space Stations in Canada
Notice No. SMSE-009-21, Consultation on Updates to the Licensing and Fee Framework for Earth Stations and Space Stations in Canada, was published on Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s (ISED) Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website on August 4, 2021. The deadline for submitting reply comments was November 8, 2021.
The purpose of the present notice is to advise all interested parties that the deadline for submitting reply comments has been extended to November 22, 2021. All comments received will be posted on ISED’s Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website.
Obtaining copies
Copies of this notice and of documents referred to herein are available electronically on ISED’s Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website.
Official versions of notices can be viewed on the Canada Gazette website.
October 27, 2021
Martin Proulx
Director General
Engineering, Planning and Standards Branch
INNOVATION, SCIENCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CANADA
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
Notice No. SMSE-011-21 — Release of REC-LAB, issue 7, REC-CB, issue 1, and DES-LAB, issue 8
Notice is hereby given that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) has published the following documents:
- REC-LAB, issue 7, Procedure for the Recognition of Testing Laboratories to Test/Assess to Canadian Requirements, which specifies the criteria and procedure for recognition by ISED of testing laboratories, either Canadian or foreign, to test/assess to Canadian requirements for telecommunications terminal equipment, radio apparatus and broadcasting equipment standards.
- REC-CB, issue 1, Recognition Procedure and Requirements for Certification Bodies, which specifies the recognition criteria and procedures used by ISED in the recognition of Canadian and foreign entities as certification bodies (CBs), under the terms of mutual recognition agreements / arrangements (MRAs) or any other equivalent agreement or arrangement, to certify products to Canadian regulatory requirements. The administrative and operational requirements that CBs must meet in order to maintain their recognition are also specified.
- DES-LAB, issue 8, Procedure for the Designation of Canadian Testing Laboratories, which specifies the procedure applicable to Canadian testing laboratories for ISED designation to test telecommunications equipment, information technology equipment and radio apparatus (including testing for electromagnetic compatibility [EMC]), as applicable under the terms of the relevant mutual recognition agreements / arrangements (MRAs), to the requirements of foreign regulatory authorities.
These documents are now official and available on the Published documents page of the Spectrum management and telecommunications website.
Submitting comments
Comments and suggestions for improving these documents may be submitted online using the Standard Change Request form.
October 21, 2021
Martin Proulx
Director General
Engineering, Planning and Standards Branch