Guidance document to highlight that for this Section 71 survey –  certain organic flame retardant substances – manufactured items such as electrical equipment intended for use in a residence that contain the listed substances are included if quantity imported in 2011 was more than 100 kg of the subject substance. Examples include cable sheathing, connectors, television casing, computer circuit chips, refrigerator, microwave, iron.

Please see attached recent Section 71 survey notice for flame retardants. Issued March 30, 2013, response required by July 30, 2013. Review the following reference documents - Guidance for responding to the Notice, Sect 71 Flame Retardants and Flame Retardants_Guidance_EN This includes –  certain organic flame retardant substances – manufactured items such as electrical equipment intended for use in a residence that contain the listed substances are included if quantity imported in 2011 was more than 100 kg of the subject substance. Examples include cable sheathing, connectors, television casing, computer circuit chips, refrigerator, microwave, iron.

 This notice applies to any person who, during the 2011 calendar year, imported a total quantity greater than 100 kg of a substance listed in Schedule 1 to this notice, at any concentration

(a) whether alone, in a mixture or in a product; or

(b) in a manufactured item that is

(i) intended to be used by or for children under the age of six years,

(ii) cookware, or a cooking or serving utensil that is intended to come into direct contact with heated food in a residence, unless the component that comes into direct contact with heated food is made of glass, stainless steel or porcelain,  

(iii) a clothing, a footwear or a sleeping bag,

(iv) a bedding intended to be used in a residence,

(v) a furniture intended to be used in a residence,

(vi) a furnishing intended to be used in a residence, if the substance is contained in a foam or a textile,

(vii) a carpet, a vinyl or laminate flooring, or a foam underlay for flooring, intended to be used in a residence,

(viii) an electronic, or electrical appliance or equipment, intended to be used in a residence.

 Click here for information -http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/group/flame_retardant-ignifuges/index-eng.php

 Contact Susan Winter at swinter@electrofed.com or Wayne Edwards at wedwards@electrofed.com for information.

Get ready for the Canadian launch of ENERGY STAR’s new and improved Portfolio Manager online energy benchmarking tool on July 10, 2013. Natural Resources Canada has been working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to bring many new features to the tool that will benefit Canadians. For information on these new features, visit our Energy benchmarking website

 New Canadian Performance Metrics and Rating Changes

As of July 10, 2013

For the first time ever in Canada, there will be a standard, national energy benchmarking system that will provide more accurate and equitable building energy assessments and data.

• Canadian buildings registered in the tool will be assessed using Canadian metrics and data;
• Two new Canadian ENERGY STAR 1-100 performance scores for K-12 schools and commercial offices, including banks will be available;
• Canadian energy use intensity (EUI) scores will be available for all other building types;
• In the absence of a 1-100 performance score, organizations receiving an EUI score will be able to use Target Finder to set energy performance targets against the median EUI in their sector;
• Canadian buildings will no longer receive a U.S. 1-100 ENERGY STAR performance score;
• Canadian data will be stored on its own database, separated from U.S. data.

To make sure you are ready for the launch, please take note of the following important dates:

Subscribe to the NRC monthly newsletter, Heads Up Energy Efficiency, for Canadian-specific updates and information about upcoming Natural Resources Canada webinars.

For more information, contact Wayne Edwards, EFC VP Sustainability and Safety at wedwards@electrofed.com or the following NRC resources:

• visit our Energy benchmarking Web pages
• e-mail info-services@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca
• phone 1-877-360-5500 (toll-free) or 613-992-3245 in the National Capital Region

EFC/EEMAC members had brought their concerns forward noting the proposed change would not only be an unfair and unequal treatment of competing electrical and photoluminescent technologies, but also result in a significant reduction in safety of building occupants in many emergency situations. Our lighting committee asked EFC to become engaged in the Code revision process.

The main essence of the concern was the removal of the NBC 2010 code requirement for all signs to be ‘continuously illuminated’.  The problem being this requirement was not replaced by an alternative technology neutral measureable performance objective to provide an equivalent look, colour and appearance, and equally important consistent level of contrasting visibility, legibility under all anticipated lighting conditions. This is particularly important considering Canada is still transitioning from the textual Exit/Sortie signage to the international ISO graphically ‘running man’ symbol on a green background, where different signs could promote occupant uncertainty and confusion resulting in hesitation, extending the time to exit a building thus increasing risk of exposure to multiple hazards or worse. For further information, contact Bill Bryans.

Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL)

Background:

On December 15, 2010, the Government of Canada passed An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, and Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act.  Most stakeholders refer to the legislation as its unofficial shorthand name, Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL).   The intent of the Act is to deter the many damaging effects of spam, such as identity theft, phishing, and the spread of spyware and malware. 

CASL prohibits the sending of commercial electronic messages (CEMs) without express consent, prohibits false or misleading commercial representations online, prohibits practices detrimental to electronic commerce, allows the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Competition Tribunal Canada to impose fines on those who violate the act, and prohibits the collection of personal information by unlawful access to computer systems, among other things. 

CASL applies to e-mails, instant and text messages and any other type of CEM, and requires the express opt-in consent of the intended recipient, regardless of the type of personal information involved if that information is needed to send a CEM, alter transmission date, or install a computer program in the course of a commercial activity.

The basic requirements of CASL are:

• CASL is limited to messages that encourage participation in a commercial activity.
• Before sending a CEM senders must now receive express, opt-in consent from their intended recipient.   
• All CEMs must contain (a) the name of the person or business sending the message, (b) if the message is sent  by another person, the name of the person or business on whose behalf the message was sent, (c) if the message is sent on behalf of someone else a message indicating which person is sending the message and which person on whose behalf the message is sent, (d) the mailing address and either telephone number providing access to an agent or voice messaging system, an email address or web address of the person sending the message.  
• If it is not practical to include this information and the unsubscribe mechanism in the CEM, that information may be posted on a page on the World Wide Web that is readily accessible by the person to whom the message is sent at no cost to them by means of a link that is clearly and prominently set out in the message.
• An unsubscribe mechanism must be set out clearly and prominently in the CEM and must be able to be readily performed. 
• Fines for violating the provisions of CASL are up to $1 million per offence for persons, and up to $10 million per offence for entities. 

There are some of the proposed limited exemptions* from the general provisions include:

• Messages sent within a business.
• Messages sent between businesses already in a business relationship.
• Certain messages sent to those in non-business relationships (e.g., associations to members).
• Certain messages sent between those in personal relationships (as defined by the Income Tax Act). 
• Messages that are solicited or sent in response to complaints or requests.
• Messages sent due to a legal obligation or to enforce a legal right. 
• Certain messages sent by referral where there is an existing relationship and the referrer is identified.
• Messages sent by those located outside of Canada when the sender could not reasonably have been expected to know that their messages would be accessed in Canada. 

Relevant Legislation:

On December 15, 2010 Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation, S.C. 2010, c. 23 received royal assent.  There are two categories of regulations under CASL: Governor in Council (GIC) regulations (managed by Industry Canada), and CRTC regulations. 

On March 28, 2012, the CRTC’s Electronic Protection Regulations (Telecom CRTC 2012-183) were published. On October 10, 2012 the CRTC published two interpretative bulletins, one regarding the interpretation of the electronic commerce protection regulations and the other on the use of toggling as a means of obtaining express consent.

CASL also amends two other acts: 1- the Competition Act, administered by the Competition Bureau, to include violations respecting misleading and deceptive representations online; 2- the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), administered by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, to include contraventions involving the collection and use of personal address information without consent, or the collection of personal information by illegally accessing, using, or interfering with computer systems.

Current State:

On January 5, 2013 the GIC through Industry Canada published its proposed regulations along with a 30-day consultation period.  EFC submitted comments to those regulations as part of as part of the Coalition of Business and Technology Associations, a coalition of related associations and businesses.   

The submission to the proposed regulations can be found here.  As the Industry Canada regulations are still being finalized, CASL has not yet come into force.  That date will be fixed at some point in the future by the GIC.

Recent lobbying efforts by EFC Government Relations include a meeting with the CRTC on February 25, 2013 and a meeting with officials from Industry Canada on March 22, 2013. 

Potential Impact on Members:

A concern about CASL is that it will require Canadian organizations, such as businesses, charities and non-profit organizations, educational institutions, hospitals and others to expend significant up-front and ongoing resources to comply.  These one-time costs and all of the ongoing compliance costs and red-tape will be particularly onerous for small businesses and will far outweigh the benefits CASL is intended to provide.  Businesses without existing business or ongoing relationships will be unable fully to leverage modern means of communication. 

Another concern is over the wide range of measures CASL is drafted to sweep in and the uncertainty over necessary measures to comply.  The CRTC has provided guidance that every message that includes a hyperlink to an organization’s home page may make that message a CEM and thus subject to this regulation.  The concern is thus that the scope of CASL may apply to practically every message sent by organizations, despite its intended application to CEMs only. 

As currently drafted, CASL requires an almost message by message content review to determine if it falls within the scope of the Act, which runs counter to the purpose of the Act and places organizations in a position of unnecessary liability and risk. 

EFC Advocacy on this Issue:

EFC Government Relations has been lobbying both Industry Canada and the CRTC since September 2011 as part of the Coalition.  EFC will continue to advocate for a more effective approach to the definition of CEMs, the means of obtaining consent (including grandfathering in existing consents under PIPEDA) and advocate for as long a period after the regulations are finalized and CASL comes into force as possible to give members time to comply with CASL. 

* These limited exemptions are from the proposed regulations recently published by the GIC / Industry Canada on January 5, 2013.  Please note that these regulations are not yet final. 

** Prepared February 20, 2013.  This information is subject to change.  It is not intended as legal advice and was provided for informational purposes only. 

Effective July 14, 2013, “phase 2” of the RecycFluo program in Quebec will begin. The purpose of this notice is to inform you about the potential obligations for your company, suppliers and/or customers.

The current RecycFluo program only captures replacement mercury-containing lamps sold individually to the residential, institutional, commercial and industrial sectors in Quebec, in response to the requirements of the Regulation respecting the recovery and reclamation of products by enterprises (“the Regulation”). Effective July 14, 2013, the requirements of the Regulation extend to include “component” mercury-containing lamps sold integrated into products such as lighting fixtures, automobiles, tools etc. and other products not already captured by the Regulation.  These component lamps are included whether or not the lamp can be removed by the end-user from the product in which it is integrated. For more information, please refer to Chapter II, Section 3 of the Regulation or pages 19 to 23 of the Regulation Guidelines.

Consequently, all “brand owners/first suppliers” (including manufacturers, distributors and retailers) selling products in Quebec that include mercury-containing lamps as a component (lighting fixtures, etc.) are required either to operate or join an accredited program such as RecycFluo by July 14, 2013.

The current RecycFluo program is funded by eco-fees applied to the individual sales of new replacement mercury-containing lamps. Fees are remitted to the program by members and are used to fund all program costs, including the collection and recycling of end-of-life products. After July 14, 2013 eco-fees will also apply to component mercury-containing lamps sold integrated into products (for convenience, the date at which fees will apply will be August 1, 2013). For example, a member selling a lighting fixture containing two CFLs would be required to report and remit to the program two CFL fees on the sale of that fixture. Please note that electronic products currently covered by the Regulation including computers, printers and cameras, which contain mercury-containing lamps, are not impacted by the RecycFluo program. This category of products is managed by programs such as the Electronic Products Recycling Association (EPRA) program in Quebec.

Product Care Association (PCA) is in the process of identifying potentially obligated products, members and enterprises.  PCA is also in the process of developing fee rates for component mercury-containing lamps which will be in effect as of August 1, 2013. We will be holding a series of conference calls in the near future to discuss these issues further with our members and potential members.

In the meantime, we encourage all members and potentially obligated enterprises (e.g. fixture manufacturers) to begin the process of identifying the products they sell that contain mercury-containing lamps, and the number and type of mercury lamps (e.g. CFL vs HID) in those products.  Please pass on this notice to any suppliers and/or customers of these products.

If you are a company referred to the Regulation, you must provide the Ministère du Développement Durable, de l’Environnement, Faune et Parcs (MDDEFP) by April 14, 2013 a notice of intent specifying that you either join the program of PCA, or set up your own program.

For more information or to obtain a notice of intent for the MDDEFP please contact Louis Duvivier at the details below.  If you determine that you are not obligated under the QC Regulation for these products, we request that you email and advise us of the basis for your decision.

For more information, contact Wayne Edwards at wedwards@electrofed.com 

The purpose of this summit was to introduce our respective value proposition business cases. This included the electrical, electronic and telecommunications sectors, as well as Plumbing, Heating and Air Handling sectors in the Canadian and American Regulatory Cooperation Council initiative for Red Tape reduction to improve most cost effective cross border trade.

The objective of the meeting was to engage our primary counterpart associations in the USA. In addition engage as well as other Canadian and American associations whose members participate in these same sectors, seeking a common understanding and consensus of the issues and agree to collaborate on articulating the message and consider next steps to promote directed change.

The common principles are yet to be finalized but were voiced as follows:

Streamlined CA/US Regulatory objectives and supporting standardization system to promote industry lead harmonization will:

•  Lobby for regulatory alignment of objectives and timing implementation, and supporting  standardization system level playing field to provide:

1.       safeguard consumer safety,

2.       decrease costs to the end user,

3.       increases the speed to market,

4.       provide a more efficient supply chain,

5.       provide consistency of Regulatory safeguards,

6.       create continental approach and best practices,

7.       regain leadership promoting new technology internationally,

8.       improve international competitiveness,

9.       reduce opportunity for national standard non-compliant product, including counterfeit, getting to market

•  through a: one standard, one test, one certification, accepted in both countries philosophy

The next steps will be to brief the Canadian Federal and Provincial authorities in early June. Our US counterparts are also working out their next steps to win support south of the border. For further information, please contact Bill Bryans at bbryans@electrofed.com

There have been several IEEE based face to face and web-conference meetings, as well as separate multi-industry association (EFC, NEMA, CEA, AHAM, AHRI, HRAI, ITIC, ITAC) calls to discuss and prepare industries response and proposals. After two years of presentations and discussion, the gap between the two sides seemed insurmountable.  At the last face to face meeting in January, the industry’s counter proposal was tabled and correctly billed as the make or break meeting. To determine whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed or stop the proceeding and cancel the IEEE effort to find a compromise. Going into that meeting the utilities were not in agreement with our proposal to include only five equipment types, in addition to lighting, that has been in in scope from the beginning. At that time we could not even confirm which five equipment manufacturers would agree to include.

To shorten the story, the right people said the right things at the right time, and both parties have agreed we had reached enough middle ground to proceed. The major points of this middle ground are as follows:

1. Recognition that it is more cost effective to provide mitigation when a product is first developed, and not to force a retrofit design. The example used was CFL which is near end of life as far as new product designs are concerned, and onerous limits would result in premature demise of this Utility heavily promoted ‘energy saver’. We are developing a definition for ‘product family’ as a means to grandfather ‘all’ existing harmonic producing power supply and variable F/S drive designs. This avoids impacting product model changes not affecting the target component/assembly topology.
2.  Limit to a single standard for only residential equipment regardless of power.
3.  We’ll start with the products shown on the EIA list of the top 80% energy use in residences: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=96&t=3 NRCan has a similar list. The main difference as expected is the ranking of heating versus cooling equipment between the two countries.
4. No retesting of equipment already compliant with the relevant IEC standard or other National adoption (Japan).
5. The two independent  chairs have developed a ‘K’ factor of 1.5x to be used to derive equivalent North American limits for non-lighting equipment relevant to IEC 61000-3-2 Class A.a.    

           a. Lighting: CFL are grandfathered. The NEMA committee will consider different limits for LED and newer technologies. They meet the 1^st week of April to consider their next move

            b.    Other EIA listed candidate residential equipment where to be part of a new Class E: The IEC Class A THD value will be    Multiplied by the ‘K’ factor to determine the base percentage of acceptable harmonic current in our Class E. The new designed candidate equipment should have less harmonic current than x% of their name plate rated current. This makes the limits fully scalable and avoids need for multiple product classes.

                                          i.    However, on our last call, it was proposed the IEC Class A limits x1.5 apply up to 16A, and the new Class E would be for equipment above 16A as described above. So decision made yet how to proceed.

              c.     To address the other Utility concern from Triplen currents, the x% will also be applicable to the 3^rd harmonic only for single and split phase equipment above 16A, as this will help manage the higher order ones.

For more information, contact Bill Bryans at bbryans@electrofed.com

This proposal provided a case study example of redundant costs due to the unnecessary differences in our two countries parallel regulatory and supporting standardization systems [competing interests of standards developers and certification agencies minimize cooperation]. The latest Red Tape Reduction Report survey indicated excessive regulations and association requirements have roughly a 30% redundancy, which is very similar to EFC conclusions. It goes on the estimate, if this 30% was removed, it would be equivalent to a Canadian stimulation package of $9B, and $61B for the US. For our sectors, EFC’s conservative estimate is $500M from non-harmonized standards, and it could be as high as $2B.

The highlights of the proposal has been presented in a number of forums, most recently CANENA. It has also been shared with a dozen US and Canadian manufacturing and trade associations as a means to raise awareness, ask questions and gather support in principle on both sides of the border that the level of cross border should be improved when the proposal is published. The next step is a summit of about 20+ US/CA manufacturing associations April 11^th in Washington to present the finding, identify and discuss common issues and priorities for resolution, and develop next steps on both sides of the border. The Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating also submitted a proposal, so one half of these stakeholders are from those sectors. SCC is arranging a follow up Canadian meeting in Ottawa with Federal and Provincial authorities to hear the consensus results. The purpose of these preliminary steps is to demonstrate an industry consensus change is needed.

An important point to make is unanimity among the various associations or even among different product groups within them is not required to proceed. Those parties who see benefit from closer cross border cooperation should be allowed to propose and make those changes. Those content with their status quo do not have to participate and will not be impacted by the changes made by others. Contact Bill Bryans for more information.

Also  proposed EFC Proposed Guidelines for General Purpose Switches When Retrofitting Lighting Installations with Electronic Ballasted Lighting- 347V Switch EFC Recommendation

Contact Bill Bryans at bbryans@electrofed.com with any inquiries

TORONTO – Electro-Federation Canada (EFC) is pleased to support the Combating Counterfeit Products Act proposed by the Government of Canada. This is welcome legislation after many years of advocating for more effective solutions to tackle this problem.

EFC is encouraged to see that the Government has given the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) expanded powers of search, seizure and interception. Rights holders will also have increased options for pursuing counterfeiters such as getting notice of suspect goods intercepted at the border, the ability to file Requests for Assistance with the CBSA and the judicial remedy of private right of action.

EFC is particularly encouraged by Minister Paradis’ comments that the Government is actively focused on protecting intellectual property rights and Minister Toews’ statements recognizing that counterfeiting poses a serious risk to the health and safety of Canadians.

QUOTES:

“The Combating Counterfeit Products Act is a positive step in addressing the very real issues posed by counterfeit products in Canada. EFC and its member companies are concerned with intellectual property rights, the economic impacts of counterfeit products and health and safety issues.”  – Jim Taggart, President & CEO, Electro-Federation Canada

“Working against the scourge of counterfeiting has been a major issue for EFC and its member companies.  Canadian electrical and electronics manufacturers in particular are concerned about rampant and flagrant counterfeiting, from fake cell phones to phony circuit breakers. EFC welcomes the Combating Counterfeit Products Act as a step in the right direction.”  – Brisette Lucas, Vice President Government Relations & Policy, Electro-Federation Canada

ELECTRO-FEDERATION CANADA:

Electro-Federation Canada (EFC) is a national, not-for-profit industry association. Together its councils represent over 300 member companies that manufacture, distribute and service electrical, electronics, and telecommunications products, contributing over $50B to the Canadian economy and employing more than 130,000 workers in more than 1,400 facilities across Canada. Learn more at www.electrofed.com.

CONTACT:

Brisette Lucas

Vice President Government Relations & Policy

Electro-Federation Canada

905-602-6214

- 30 -