| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vol. 137, No. 19 — May 10, 2003 Order Amending the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Extension of General Preferential Tariff to Mongolia)Statutory Authority Customs Tariff Sponsoring Department Department of Finance REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT Description This Order extends General Preferential Tariff (GPT) treatment to Mongolia. This measure should help Mongolia's economic development prospects and increase their export earnings. Alternative There is no practical alternative. Paragraph 34(1)(a) of the Customs Tariff which permits the Governor in Council to extend the benefit of GPT treatment to a country is the most appropriate way to implement the proposed measure. Benefits and Costs The extension of GPT treatment to goods originating in Mongolia is intended to help Mongolia's economic development prospects. Given current trade patterns, the amount of duty foregone is minimal, less than $10,000 annually. Consultation The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian International Development Agency, and the Department of Industry support this action. Compliance and Enforcement The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will ensure that the applicable tariff treatment is accorded to imported goods from Mongolia. Contact Tom Grace, International Trade Policy Division, Department of Finance, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G5, (613) 992-3585 (Telephone). PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(a) of the Customs Tariff (see footnote a) , proposes to make the annexed Order Amending the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Extension of General Preferential Tariff to Mongolia). Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Order 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 addressed to the Director, International Trade Policy Division, Department of Finance, 140 O'Connor Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0G5. Ottawa, May 1, 2003 EILEEN BOYD Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXTENSION OF GENERAL PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TO MONGOLIA) AMENDMENT 1. The reference to "Mongolia" in the List of Countries and Applicable Tariff Treatments set out in the schedule to the Customs Tariff (see footnote 1) is replaced by "Mongolia †". COMING INTO FORCE 2. This Order comes into force on the day on which it is registered. [19-1-o] Regulations Amending the Great Lakes Pilotage Tariff RegulationsStatutory Authority Pilotage Act Sponsoring Agency Great Lakes Pilotage Authority REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT Description The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority (the Authority) is responsible for administering in the interests of safety, an efficient pilotage service within Canadian waters in the Province of Quebec, south of the northern entrance to St. Lambert Lock and in and around the Provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. Section 33 of the Pilotage Act allows the Authority to prescribe tariffs of pilotage charges that are fair and reasonable, and that permit the Authority to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis. To support its efforts towards maintaining fiscal self-sufficiency, it is necessary for the Authority to amend the Great Lakes Pilotage Tariff Regulations (the GLPTR) to reflect an overall 4.5 percent increase in pilotage charges. For the period between 1994 and 2001, the Authority did not raise its pilotage charges despite an aggregate rate of inflation of approximately 20 percent. In fact, in 1999 and 2000, the GLPTR were amended to provide two successive 5 percent reductions in tariff charges thereby saving the marine industry over $1 million. Pilotage charges were increased for the first time in nine years by 3 percent in 2002 and a further 4 percent in 2003. This reflects a 7 percent increase during the period when inflation totaled 20 percent. This proposed amendment will assist the Authority in offsetting the substantial increases in the operating costs of providing pilotage services, cover expenses related to training and the costs associated with implementing government policies and practices. With respect to a vessel making a round trip between St. Lambert Lock (Montréal) and Thunder Bay, the net effect of the 4.5 percent increase averages out to an overall increase of $2,000 or 9¢ per tonne of cargo carried on the round trip. Alternatives A retention of the existing tariff rates was considered as a possible option. The Authority, however, rejected this status quo alternative since a readjustment of the tariff rates is necessary to reflect the actual costs of providing the various pilotage services. The proposed amendment will support the Authority's efforts to ensure its financial self-sufficiency while providing a safe and efficient pilotage service. Benefits and Costs The 4.5 percent increase is consistent with the Authority's efforts to raise its charges to reflect the actual costs of providing present pilotage services. It is anticipated that the amendment will generate an annual increase in revenue of $540,000. This charge is beneficial in that it will ensure the continued efficiency of the pilotage services while maintaining the present level of pilot numbers as requested by the marine industry. In addition, this increase will enhance the Authority's ability to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis that is both fair and reasonable. This proposed amendment will not have any impact on the environment. Consultation The Authority met with the Shipping Federation of Canada (SFC) on March 4, 2003, and individually with members on April 8, 2003, to present its financial position and solicit comments on increasing its tariff. SFC members clearly indicated that pilot numbers should remain at the 2002 level. The Authority had prepared its budget based on this premise. Based on its current financial situation, the Authority indicated that it has no alternative but to increase pilot charges to maintain current pilot numbers. The response of those consulted varied with some agreeing that the increase was fair and reasonable while others indicated their opposition to any increase that would be necessary to fund the escalating costs of maintaining present pilot numbers. Compliance and Enforcement Section 45 of the Pilotage Act provides that a customs officer at any port in Canada shall withhold clearance from a ship upon being advised by a pilotage authority that pilotage charges in respect of that ship are outstanding and unpaid. Paragraph 48(c) of the Pilotage Act provides for penalties if the Regulations are contravened. These include fines of up to $5,000. Contact Mr. R. F. Lemire, Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, P.O. Box 95, Cornwall, Ontario K6H 5R9, (613) 933-2991 (Telephone), (613) 932-3793 (Facsimile). PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 34(1) (see footnote b) of the Pilotage Act, that the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority proposes, pursuant to subsection 33(1) of that Act, to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Great Lakes Pilotage Tariff Regulations. Interested persons who have reason to believe that any charge in the proposed Regulations is prejudicial to the public interest, including, without limiting the generality thereof, the public interest that is consistent with the national transportation policy set out in section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act (see footnote c) , may file a notice of objection setting out the grounds therefor with the Canadian Transportation Agency within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. The notice of objection should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to the Canadian Transportation Agency, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N9. ROBERT LEMIRE Chief Executive Officer Great Lakes Pilotage Authority REGULATIONS AMENDING THE GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS 1. (1) Subsections 1(1) to (4) of Schedule I to the Great Lakes Pilotage Tariff Regulations (see footnote 2) are replaced by the following: 1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the basic charge for a passage, other than a movage, through International District No. 1 or any part thereof and its contiguous waters is $7.57 for each kilometre ($12.60 for each statute mile), plus $168 for each lock transited. (2) The minimum and maximum basic charges for a through trip through International District No. 1 and its contiguous waters are $368 and $1,615, respectively. (3) The basic charge for a movage in International District No. 1 and its contiguous waters is $553. (4) If a ship, during its passage through the Welland Canal, docks or undocks for any reason other than instructions given by The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, the basic charge is $35 for each kilometre ($58.32 for each statute mile), plus $217 for each lock transited, with a minimum charge of $725. (2) The portion of items 1 to 15 of the table to subsection 1(5) of Schedule I to the Regulations in column 2 is replaced by the following:
(3) The portion of items 1 to 4 of the table to subsection 1(6) of Schedule I to the Regulations in column 2 is replaced by the following:
2. (1) The portion of items 1 and 2 of the table to subsection 2(1) of Schedule I to the Regulations in column 2 is replaced by the following:
(2) Subsection 2(3) of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following: (3) The basic charge for pilotage services consisting of a lockage and a movage between Buffalo and any point on the Niagara River below the Black Rock Lock is $678. 3. Subsections 3(1) and (2) of Schedule I to the Regulations are replaced by the following: 3. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), if, for the convenience of a ship, a pilot is detained after the end of the pilot's assignment or during an interruption of the passage of the ship through designated waters or contiguous waters, an additional basic charge of $49 is payable for each hour or part of an hour that the pilot is detained. (2) The maximum basic charge under subsection (1) for any 24-hour period is $778. 4. Section 4 of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following: 4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if the departure or movage of a ship to which a pilot has been assigned is delayed for the convenience of the ship for more than one hour after the pilot reports for duty at the designated boarding point, a basic charge of $49 is payable for each hour or part of an hour, including the first hour of that delay. (2) The maximum basic charge under subsection (1) for any 24-hour period is $778. 5. Subsections 5(1) to (3) of Schedule I to the Regulations are replaced by the following: 5. (1) If a request for a pilotage service is cancelled after the pilot reports for duty at the designated boarding point, the basic charge is $1,045. (2) Subject to subsection (3), if a request for pilotage services is cancelled more than one hour after the pilot reports for duty at the designated boarding point, in addition to the basic charge set out in subsection (1), a basic charge of $49 is payable for each hour or part of an hour, including the first hour, between the time the pilot reports and the time of cancellation. (3) The maximum basic charge payable under subsection (2) for any 24-hour period is $778. 6. Subsections 7(1) and (2) of Schedule I to the Regulations are replaced by the following: 7. (1) If a pilot is unable to board a ship at the normal boarding point and, to board it, must travel beyond the area for which the pilot's services are requested, the basic charge of $301 is payable for each 24-hour period or part of a 24-hour period during which the pilot is away from the normal boarding point. (2) If a pilot is carried on a ship beyond the area for which the pilot's services are requested, the basic charge of $301 is payable for each 24-hour period or part of a 24-hour period before the pilot is returned to the place where the pilot normally would have disembarked. 7. The portion of items 1 to 4 of the table to section 1 of Schedule II to the Regulations in columns 2 and 3 is replaced by the following:
8. (1) Paragraph 4(1)(b) of Schedule II to the Regulations is replaced by the following: (b) $91 (2) Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule II to the Regulations is replaced by the following: (b) $1,409 9. (1) Paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule II to the Regulations is replaced by the following: (b) $91 (2) Paragraph 5(2)(b) of Schedule II to the Regulations is replaced by the following: (b) $1,409 10. (1) Subsection 6(1) of Schedule II to the Regulations is replaced by the following: 6. (1) If a request for pilotage services is cancelled after the pilot reports for duty at the designated boarding point, the basic charge is $1,045. (2) Paragraph 6(2)(b) of Schedule II to the Regulations is replaced by the following: (b) $91 (3) Paragraph 6(3)(b) of Schedule II to the Regulations is replaced by the following: (b) $1,409 11. The portion of items 1 and 2 of the table to section 1 of Schedule III to the Regulations in column 2 is replaced by the following:
COMING INTO FORCE 12. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered. [19-1-o] Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (1315 — Fosetyl-aluminum)Statutory Authority Food and Drugs Act Sponsoring Department Department of Health REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT Description Fosetyl-aluminum is registered under the Pest Control Products Act as a systemic fungicide with protective and curative action for use on apples and lettuce. Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) have been established under the Food and Drugs Act for residues of fosetyl-aluminum resulting from its use in Canada and other countries at 100 parts per million (p.p.m.) in celery, lettuce and spinach; 75 p.p.m. in strawberries; 60 p.p.m. in broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and mustard greens; 15 p.p.m. in cantaloupes, cucumbers, and squash; 10 p.p.m. in avocados; 3 p.p.m. in tomatoes; 1 p.p.m. in apples and 0.5 p.p.m. in onions (dry). By virtue of subsection B.15.002(1) of the Food and Drug Regulations, the MRL for other foods is 0.1 p.p.m. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada has recently approved an application to amend the registration of fosetyl-aluminum in order to allow its use for the control of downy mildew on bok choy cabbage and Chinese broccoli. This proposed regulatory amendment would establish an MRL for residues of fosetyl-aluminum resulting from this use in bok choy cabbage and Chinese broccoli, in order to permit the sale of food containing these residues. Before making a registration decision regarding a new use of a pest control product, the PMRA conducts the appropriate assessment of the risks and value of the product specific to its proposed use. The registration of the pest control product will be amended if: the data requirements for assessing value and safety have been adequately addressed; the evaluation indicates that the product has merit and value; and the human health and environmental risks associated with its proposed use are acceptable. The human health risk assessment includes an assessment of dietary risks posed by expected residues of the pest control product, as determined through extensive toxicological studies. An acceptable daily intake (ADI) and/or acute reference dose (ARD) is calculated by applying a safety factor to a no observable adverse effect level or, in appropriate cases, by applying a risk factor which is calculated based on a linear low-dose extrapolation. The potential daily intake (PDI) is calculated from the amount of residue that remains on each food when the pest control product is used according to the proposed label and the intake of that food from both domestic and imported sources in the diet. PDIs are established for various Canadian subpopulations and age groups, including infants, toddlers, children, adolescents and adults. Provided the PDI does not exceed the ADI or ARD for any subpopulation or age group, and the lifetime risk is acceptable, the expected residue levels are established as MRLs under the Food and Drugs Act to prevent the sale of food with higher residue levels. Since, in most cases, the PDI is well below the ADI and lifetime risks are very low when MRLs are originally established, additional MRLs for the pest control product may be added in the future. After the review of all available data, the PMRA has determined that an MRL for fosetyl-aluminum of 60 p.p.m. in bok choy cabbage and Chinese broccoli would not pose an unacceptable health risk to the public. Alternatives Under the Food and Drugs Act, it is prohibited to sell food containing residues of pest control products at a level greater than 0.1 p.p.m. unless a higher MRL has been established in Table II, Division 15, of the Food and Drug Regulations. In the case of fosetyl-aluminum, establishment of an MRL for bok choy cabbage and Chinese broccoli is necessary to support the additional use of a pest control product which has been shown to be both safe and effective, while at the same time preventing the sale of food with unacceptable residues. As a means to improve the responsiveness of the regulatory system, an Interim Marketing Authorization (IMA) was issued on November 9, 2002, to permit the immediate sale of Chinese broccoli and bok-choy cabbage containing residues of fosetyl-aluminum with an MRL of 60 p.p.m. while the regulatory process to formally amend the Regulations is undertaken. Benefits and Costs The use of fosetyl-aluminum on bok choy cabbage and Chinese broccoli will provide joint benefits to consumers and the agricultural industry as a result of improved management of pests. In addition, this proposed regulatory amendment will contribute to a safe, abundant and affordable food supply by allowing the importation and sale of food commodities containing acceptable levels of pesticide residues. Some costs may be incurred related to the implementation of analytical methods for analysis of fosetyl-aluminum in the foods mentioned above. Resources required are not expected to result in significant costs to the Government. Consultation Registration decisions, including dietary risk assessments, made by the PMRA are based on internationally recognized risk management principles, which are largely harmonized among member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Individual safety evaluations conducted by the PMRA include a review of the assessments conducted at the international level as part of the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization Food Standards Programme in support of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as well as MRLs adopted by other national health/ regulatory agencies. Compliance and Enforcement Compliance will be monitored through ongoing domestic and/or import inspection programs conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency when the proposed MRL for fosetyl-aluminum is adopted. Contact Geraldine Graham, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Address Locator 6607D1, 2720 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9, (613) 736-3692 (Telephone), (613) 736-3659 (Facsimile), geraldine_graham@hc-sc.gc.ca (Electronic mail). PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 30(1) (see footnote d) of the Food and Drugs Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (1315 — Fosetyl-aluminum). Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations within 75 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Geraldine Graham, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health, Address Locator 6607D1, 2720 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9 (tel.: (613) 736-3692; fax: (613) 736-3659; e-mail: geraldine_graham@hc-sc. 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, May 8, 2003 EILEEN BOYD Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council REGULATIONS AMENDING THE FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS (1315 — FOSETYL-ALUMINUM) AMENDMENT 1. The portion of item F.5 of Table II to Division 15 of Part B of the Food and Drug Regulations (see footnote 3) in columns III and IV is replaced by the following:
COMING INTO FORCE 2. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered. [19-1-o] S.C. 1997, c. 36 S.C. 1997, c. 36 S.C. 1998, c. 10, s. 150 S.C. 1996, c. 10 SOR/84-253; SOR/96-409 S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 347 C.R.C., c. 870 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NOTICE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
