Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 151, Number 11: Regulations Amending the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations

March 18, 2017

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: A review of Part XII of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (COHSR or the Regulations), conducted between 2008 and 2012, identified a number of issues, including outdated references to health and safety standards (e.g. for protective footwear and fall-protection equipment); the need to modernize the fall-protection system and training requirements; the misalignment of federal requirements under Part XII with those under other parts of the COHSR, the Canada Labour Code (the Code), and provincial laws; and a lack of clarity in the regulatory text. Most employers comply voluntarily with the latest standards; however, the presence of outdated references to standards in the Regulations may prevent enforcement action where obsolete equipment or clothing is in use, and there may be an associated risk to the health and safety of employees within federally regulated workplaces.

Description: The proposed amendments to Part XII of the COHSR would apply to all federally regulated employers and employees in federally regulated industries, except on-board employees on ships, aircraft or trains and employees in the oil and gas sector under federal jurisdiction, and would

  • — Update the references for all standards that are incorporated by reference;
  • — Modernize the section on fall-protection systems in order to properly reflect industry standards and practices and to reference newly developed standards;
  • — Revise the requirements for the selection, fit, care of, use and maintenance of respiratory protection equipment;
  • — Revise the section on Protection Against Moving Vehicles to better protect the employees; and
  • — Align federal requirements under Part XII with those under other parts of the COHSR, the Code, and provincial laws, and clarify the regulatory text.

Cost-benefit statement: The total costs associated with the proposed regulatory amendments are estimated to be $33.2 million over 20 years, with benefits estimated to be $58.1 million, resulting in a net benefit of approximately $24.9 million. Approximately 79% of the net benefits stem from the new requirements prescribing that employers develop and implement a fall-protection plan and provide employees with instructions and training on any fall hazards inherent in their workplace.

The remainder of the benefits from the proposed regulatory amendments are the result of reductions in administrative burden, specifically the elimination of record-keeping requirements in relation to equipment that is disposable. The benefits from this reduction are estimated at approximately $5.2 million over 20 years. (see footnote 1)

“One-for-One” Rule and small business lens: The proposed amendments are not expected to result in any incremental administrative burden, either because a given provision has no associated administrative activity, or because administrative activities are already being performed by regulated parties. The proposed amendments would clarify that the records of the protection equipment the employers must keep would not apply to disposable equipment; this would decrease the administrative burden by an estimated annualized value of $358,020 over 10 years (discounted to 2012, in 2012 dollars).

The regulatory changes do impose costs on small businesses; therefore, the small business lens applies. Application of the lens identified flexibilities that reduced compliance costs for all businesses, including administrative reductions of $1.2 million for small businesses, or around $270 per small business for the 10-year period after implementation of the proposed amendments (in 2012 dollars). Small businesses were estimated to make up a significant share (80%) of the business enterprises directly affected by the proposed amendments (i.e. industries where employees are working from heights); therefore, they also make up a considerable share of the total estimated costs of the new regulatory requirements. (see footnote 2)

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: The proposed amendments include updated or new standards from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and from relevant industrial standards from the United States. CSA standards are developed taking into consideration international standards.

Background

The COHSR are made pursuant to Part II of the Code, the purpose of which is to prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment in federally regulated industries. Part II applies to interprovincial and international transportation, chartered banks, telecommunications, broadcasting, shipping and related services, the grain industry, feed and seed mills, uranium mining, most Crown corporations, and the federal public administration. Employees in these industries account for approximately 8% of the Canadian workforce. Specific regulations apply to on-board employees on ships, aircraft or trains, and employees in the oil and gas sector under federal jurisdiction. Other industrial activities fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Where it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate a health or safety hazard in the workplace, Part XII of the COHSR prescribes safety material, equipment, devices and clothing that must be used by employees to protect their health and safety. It also describes the types of equipment that must be provided by employers, and which must be used by employees while performing work at the workplace.

Since the COHSR came into force in 1986, Part XII has been amended on six occasions. A majority of the amendments were housekeeping in nature; however, there were two significant amendments that continue to protect the health and safety of federally regulated employees.

  1. Work on a vehicle. In 2002, Part XII was amended to ensure that employees working on vehicles have the same fall protections as all other employees under federal jurisdiction. Prior to these amendments, there was no obligation on the part of employers to provide protection to employees required to climb onto objects not covered under the term “structure,” such as trucks and mobile equipment.
  2. Respiratory protection. In 1999, Part XII was amended to incorporate by reference the Certified Equipment List published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (see footnote 3) Employers were thereafter required to provide respirators to employees of a type approved for its intended use and identified on the NIOSH Certified Equipment List. The purpose of this amendment was to replace procedures that were then 60 years old with contemporary technology for air purifying respirators.

In April 2008, a working group, comprising employers, employees and experts in the area of occupational health and safety (OHS) from the Department of Employment and Social Development Labour Program (the Labour Program), was created with the intent to review in depth Part XII. Part XII was identified as a priority for review by the working group, given that a majority of standards incorporated in the Regulations were out of date (most of them being over 25 years old); technical requirements were not up to industry standards nor were they harmonized with the legislation of other Canadian jurisdictions; and there was a need to clarify the language of certain sections of the Regulations as it led to cases of misinterpretation.

In 2009, eight working group meetings and five subcommittee meetings took place, the latter of which reviewed issues solely related to fall-protection systems given the complexity of this matter and the need for expertise. As a result of these meetings, a final report was prepared in 2012 forming the basis for a series of proposed amendments to Part XII, and disseminated to stakeholders via email. The final report was approved by the working group on November 21, 2012.

Issues

A review of Part XII of the COHSR, conducted between 2008 and 2012, identified a number of issues, including the outdated health and safety standards (e.g. for protective footwear and fall-protection equipment); the need to modernize the fall-protection system and training requirements; the misalignment of federal requirements under Part XII with those under other parts of the COHSR, the Code, and provincial laws; and a lack of clarity in the regulatory text. Most employers comply voluntarily with the latest standards; however, the presence of references to outdated standards in the Regulations may prevent enforcement action where obsolete equipment or clothing is in use, and there may be an associated risk to the health and safety of employees within federally regulated workplaces.

It is estimated that there are approximately 3 500 injuries due to falls in the federal jurisdiction and approximately 5 fatalities per year. The current Regulations are clearly not effective in protecting the employees from injuries as a result of falls.

Objectives

The main objectives of the proposed amendments to the COHSR are to

Description

The proposed Regulations Amending the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (the proposed amendments) would apply to all federally regulated employers and employees in federally regulated industries, except on-board employees on ships, aircraft or trains, and to employees in the oil and gas sector under federal jurisdiction.

Update references to standards

The proposed amendments would update the references for standards that are incorporated by reference in order to ensure that employees are using modern safety technology and are provided with better protection in the workplace. The sections in which new standards would be incorporated or references to existing standards would be updated relate to protective headwear, protective footwear, eye and face protection, respiratory protection, fall-protection components and equipment, elevating work platforms, protection against drowning and protection against moving vehicles.

The proposed amendments would include reference to the most recent version of CSA and Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) standards. These standards were prepared and formally approved by technical committees, composed of employee and employer representatives as well as federal and provincial government experts. The technical committees consider other international standards before a standard is submitted to the Standards Council of Canada for approval as a National Standard of Canada, for example

A provision was added to avoid a situation in which a CSA standard or a CGSB standard be published and only available in one language. Following this new provision, any amendment to a CSA standard or CGSB standard that is incorporated by reference in Part XII is effective on the 30th day after the day on which the amendment has been published by the CSA or CGSB, as the case may be, in both official languages.

Storage, inspection and maintenance of protection equipment

The proposed regulatory amendments prescribe that all equipment be properly stored, maintained, inspected and, if applicable, tested, by a qualified person in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, if any to ensure that it is in good working condition.

Fall protection

The proposed amendments would update provisions relating to fall protection as well as the references to the standards incorporated by reference, harmonize the Regulations with other jurisdictions, both provincial and territorial, and clarify language and terminology in order to better ensure proper protection for employees where there is a risk of falling in the workplace.

Fall-protection plans. The proposed amendments would require that employers develop fall-protection plans in consultation with the workplace committee or the health and safety representative. The employer would also be required to provide every person with training on the fall-protection plan and make the plan readily available at the workplace for consultation.

Height at which a fall-protection system is required. The Regulations currently require that fall-protection systems be provided when employees are working at a height of 2.4 m from an unguarded structure, on a vehicle or a ladder. The proposed amendments would change this to 3 m, to harmonize with other jurisdictions in the country. This proposed amendment would not reduce the protection for employees, since the general duty clause set out in section 124 of the Code requires that every employer must ensure that the health and safety at work of every person employed by the employer is protected, which means that employers have the responsibility to assess all hazards in the workplace and provide the appropriate protective measures, even if employees are to be working at a height of less than 3 m.

Provision of fall-protection systems. The current Regulations, which require that every employer provide a fall-protection system to every person granted access to the workplace, are simplified. The word “unguarded” is removed, as persons working on guarded structures (e.g. devices for window cleaning and scissor lifts) also need fall protection. Furthermore, the distinction between temporary and permanent structures has been removed, as they require the same fall protection.

Fall-protection hierarchy. A particularly important proposed amendment is the addition of a section dealing with a fall-protection hierarchy that would require employers to ensure that the appropriate fall-protection system is selected, taking into account the prescribed order of priority. For falls from an elevation of 3 m or more, the hierarchy of fall protection would require particular measures to be taken to prevent workers from falling or to protect from injury as a result of such a fall. Such measures include

This fall-protection hierarchy is the preferred order of control to eliminate or reduce fall hazards by the Part XII working group. The selection of a method for fall protection by employers depends on what is appropriate for the work area and activity in question and should be considered in taking into account the presented order of priority.

Clearance distance and full body harness. The proposed regulatory amendments add the requirements that fall-arrest systems must be designed to prevent a person from hitting the ground or an object or level below the work area during a fall and that the employer must ensure that an employee who is using a personal fall-protection system wears and uses a full body harness.

Personnel lifting equipment. The proposed regulatory amendments prescribe that a fall-restraint system connected to an anchorage must be used when working on an aerial device, boom-type elevating platform, forklift truck platform, scissor lift platform or any similar personnel lifting equipment.

Control zone

The proposed amendments would define the term “control zone” and provide requirements such as it must extend at least 3 m back from the unguarded edge, and the employer must ensure the presence of a fall-protection monitor if an activity needs to be carried out in a control zone.

Respiratory protection

Currently, Part XII of the COHSR does not address respirators other than those listed in the NIOSH Certified Equipment List. Also, the CSA Z94.4 Standard referenced in the COHSR is not intended to address the selection of respirators for protection against radiological contaminants or contaminants meant to be used in weapons of mass destruction or for terrorism. By referencing the CSA Z1610 Standard in the proposed amendments of the COHSR, if there is or may be a hazard of exposure to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents resulting from a terrorist attack or being present in a war zone, the employer would be able to provide a respiratory protective device in accordance with the CSA Z1610 Standard related to protection of first responders from CBRN events (firefighters, police officers, and medical first responders/receivers).

For non-first responders such as employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or of Atomic Energy Canada Limited, or Defence Research and Development Canada researchers who may become exposed to or work with those agents on a daily basis, the employer will be able to provide the employees with the best protection available. The selection of respirators will be in accordance with either CSA Standards: CSA Z94.4 that addresses only NIOSH approved respirators or Z1610 related to respiratory protection for first responders in CBRN events.

In regards to workplaces other than where CBRN agents could be found, the proposed amendments would require that the employer provide a respiratory protective device that is listed in the NIOSH Certified Equipment List and in accordance with the CSA standard related to respiratory protection.

Protection against moving vehicles

To protect all employees when there is a hazard from moving vehicles in the workplace regardless of the frequency of the exposure, the wording of the Regulations would be amended to remove the term “regularly exposed”, as it is ambiguous and subjective.

To avoid restricting the application of preventive measures to the provision of barricades, as it is currently in the Regulations, the specific reference to barricades would be removed since several other preventive measures could be put in place by the employer under the Code to control the working area and to ensure the health and safety of employees.

A reference to the CSA standard on high-visibility safety apparel would also be proposed to ensure that if high- visibility apparel is provided by the employer, it meets the requirements of the standard and offers appropriate protection for employees.

Other proposed amendments

The General Provisions were amended to align them more closely with section 122.2 of the Code, e.g. first, the elimination of hazards, then the reduction of hazards, and finally, the use of protective equipment.

The proposed addition of a reference to the American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) would help to harmonize the Regulations with those of other jurisdictions, namely the provinces and territories as well as the United States of America, all of which prescribe CSA or ANSI approved industrial hard hats.

The other proposed amendments to Part XII are housekeeping in nature, and involve modernizing the language to provide greater clarity such as

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

The options considered were maintaining the status quo or amending the existing provisions.

There is already a regulatory framework in place that regulates personal protective equipment, clothing, devices or materials; however these current Regulations do not take into account industry's best practices and updated standards. Although employers voluntarily comply with the latest standards, amending the existing provisions would be the best option to ensure enforcement and protection of the health and safety of employees. None of these factors could be addressed via the status quo, and a regulatory option was therefore selected.

Benefits and costs

Derivation of costs

The Department conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the regulatory proposal and found that the section prescribing employers to develop and implement a fall-protection plan and provide employees with instructions and training on any fall hazards inherent in their workplace carried a significant resource impact. Other major changes prescribed in the proposed regulatory amendments are deemed to carry no significant impact. These are summarized below.

Proposed changes to respiratory protection requirements

The proposed changes would update the references to CSA standards such that it is the most recent version that is incorporated by reference, and incorporate by reference a new CSA standard applicable to respiratory devices for use against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear agents. It is expected that these changes would not result in significant costs or benefits because the vast majority of employers already meet the requirements prescribed in the proposed Regulations, as suppliers tend to conform to the latest applicable standards.

Proposed changes to fall-protection system requirements

The major change concerns a modification of the minimum height (from 2.4 to 3 m) mandating the use of a fall-protection system in cases where there is a risk of injury due to falling from a structure or vehicle. It is estimated that the impact of this change would be negligible given that the number of fall-related injuries from heights between 2.4 and 3 m represents only a fraction of total fall-related injuries in the federal jurisdiction. Moreover, other prevention measures mandated by the Regulations would already mitigate any theoretical increase in risk.

Addition of a fall-protection hierarchy

The fall-protection hierarchy would require employers to ensure that the appropriate fall-protection system is selected, taking into account the prescribed order of priority. This will have minimal impact; the design and installation of fall-protection equipment is almost always done by a qualified individual, in accordance with any applicable installation instructions (prescribed by subsection 12.10(5) of the current Regulations), and this should take into account the appropriateness of the equipment or system for a given level of fall risk.

Additional requirements related to fall-arrest systems

The proposed regulatory amendments would add the requirement that fall-arrest systems be designed to prevent a person from hitting the ground or an object or level below the work area during a fall. Further, the employer must ensure that an employee who is using a fall-arrest system wears and uses a full-body harness. It is expected that the impact of these proposed changes will be minimal. Despite the fact that the proposed language makes explicit reference to it, the current language of “fall-arrest system” already implies a full-body harness.

Additional requirements governing control zones

There is no specific wording applicable to control zones in the current Regulations. The proposed regulatory amendment addresses the issue of control zones and regulates their use. It is anticipated that the addition of the subsections on control zones will have minimal impact, as control zones are already used and these subsections just clarify the requirements around their use.

Additional requirements for storage

The current Regulations do not contain any requirements regarding the storage of protection equipment. The proposed regulatory amendments prescribe that all equipment be properly stored, maintained, inspected and, if applicable, tested by a qualified person in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, if any, to ensure that it is in good working condition. It is anticipated that this will only have a negligible impact as storage, inspection and maintenance would already be recommended by the manufacturer, and employers have an interest in ensuring that they are undertaken on a regular basis.

Additional requirements for personnel lifting equipment

The proposed regulatory amendments prescribe that a fall-restraint system connected to an anchorage be used when working on an aerial device, boom-type elevating work platform, forklift truck work platform, scissor lift platform or any similar personnel lifting equipment. While it is anticipated the addition of these requirements will lead to reductions in the number of injuries and fatalities, it is highly likely that they would be considered, even if they are not explicitly stated in the Regulations, in the development and implementation of the fall- protection plan. As a result, their impacts are quantified in this study under the aegis of the fall-protection plan.

Fall-protection plan

It is anticipated that the development of the fall- protection plan and the requisite training of affected employees will cost affected employers approximately $33.2 million (discounted) over the 20-year cost-benefit period, with a significant portion accruing in the first year after implementation, approximately $15 million (in 2016 dollars). In years 2 to 20 of the cost-benefit period, total costs are expected to average $2.1 million annually (in 2016 dollars). The reason for the large drop in the subsequent years is that in the first year after the proposed Regulations come into force, all employees regularly subjected to fall hazards will have to be trained, but in the years thereafter, only new employees will have to be trained. Follow-up training for those who have received the initial core training will only consist of a one-hour review every three years. Total costs for the fall-protection plan consist of the following three components.

1. Development of fall-protection plan

It is expected that the required time to develop the fall-protection plan will vary in accordance with work site size. For work sites with 1–5 employees, the average amount of time to develop a plan is estimated at 3 hours; work sites with 6–10 employees, 4 hours; work sites with 11–50 employees, 6 hours; and work sites with over 50 employees, 8 hours.

The number of work sites for each affected industry was obtained and broken down by work site size; this made it possible to estimate the total number of hours, by industry, required for the development of the fall-protection plan. The total number of hours was then multiplied by the average wage rate for the selected industry. Finally, industry-wide costs were added together to obtain a total cost for the federal jurisdiction. Total costs were estimated at just under $1.2 million for the 20-year cost-benefit period; the bulk of these costs would accrue in the first year after implementation of the proposed regulatory amendments.

2. Training of employees on the fall-protection plan

It was estimated that in 2016, approximately 114 800 employees in the federal jurisdiction would be exposed to fall hazards as part of their regular work duties and would require core training on the fall-protection plan developed for their workplace. Each year, accounting for employment growth and replacements for retiring employees, it is estimated that an additional 5 000 employees will also require core training. Core training is estimated at just under than three hours.

It is expected that every three years, employees who have already received the core training would require approximately one hour of self-review on their workplace fall-protection plan and training.

Training costs (not including plan development or modification costs) are estimated at approximately $13.8 million in the first year after implementation of the proposed regulatory amendments (there would be no refresher training until the fourth year after implementation); total costs average approximately $1.8 million thereafter. Core training costs are estimated at approximately $186 per trained employee per year and slightly less than $35 for each employee receiving refresher training.

Core training costs were derived from the following components: the opportunity cost of the training, which represents approximately three hours of pay for each employee taking the training (including overhead); and the actual training instruction costs that are estimated at approximately $92 per trainee.

3. Modifications to the fall-protection plan

It is estimated that modifications to the fall-protection plan will be required at least once a year. It is estimated that the opportunity cost for modifying the plan will be equal to one hour in average hourly labour costs (weighted for the affected industries). Total costs to affected employers across the federal jurisdiction will be in the range of $487,000 annually.

Derivation of benefits
Fall-protection plan

It is well established that safety training leads to reductions in work-related injuries. In a seminal 2009 study, using a large dataset of merged training and injury data from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and using a cross-sectional model (highly applicable to the Canadian context), Waehrer and Miller sought to quantify the degree to which safety training reduces particular types of injuries. They found that training specific to fall protection decreases the probability of injury by approximately 5.7%. (see footnote 4)

It is estimated that there are approximately 3 500 injuries due to falls in the federal jurisdiction and approximately 5 fatalities per year. The estimated number of fall injuries and fatalities was held constant for the 20-year cost-benefit period. The reason for this stems from the fact that the number of fall-related injuries has remained steady over the last five years, independent of population growth. It is estimated, based on the findings of the Waeher and Miller study (2009), that the prescribed training on the fall-protection plan will result in a 5.7% annual reduction in fall-related injuries and fatalities in the federal jurisdiction, which translates to reductions of approximately 199 injuries and 0.27 fatalities (or 1 fatality every 4 years). This will result in annual savings of approximately $5 million per year.

Reduction in administrative costs

The proposed amendments would eliminate administrative record keeping by employers with respect to disposable equipment, such as hand gloves and hearing protection. As a result of this reduced administrative burden, it is estimated each affected employer would, on average, spend one hour less per year at each of their work sites. It is estimated that approximately 5 052 employers will be affected, with the number of work sites per employer averaging 2.77. Savings per work site, per year, are estimated at approximately $34.83, leading to total savings of approximately $5.2 million (discounted, net present value) over 20 years (2016–2035) across the federal jurisdiction (in 2016 dollars). Average annual total savings are estimated at approximately $487,000 and average annual savings per affected employer/business in reduced administrative costs are estimated at approximately $96 (in 2016 dollars).

Other changes prescribed in the proposed regulatory amendments are deemed to carry no significant impact. Please refer to the cost-benefit analysis for further information (available on request through the contact listed below).

Cost-Benefit Statement

The net present value (NPV) of the proposed amendments over 20 years (discounted at 7% per year) is estimated at $24,931,477 (expressed in constant 2016 dollars). Total discounted benefits are estimated at $58,104,794, with total discounted costs estimated at $33,173,317. The benefits to cost ratio for the proposed regulatory amendments is 1.75:1.

Table 1: Cost-benefit summary
  Base Year: 2016 2020 2026 2032 Final Year: 2035 Total (PV) Annualized Average
A. Quantified impacts $2016
Benefits $5,484,681 $5,484,681 $5,484,681 $5,484,681 $5,484,681 $58,104,794 $5,484,681
Costs $15,029,439 $1,000,955 $1,261,190 $1,534,294 $1,675,672 $33,173,317 $3,131,326
Net benefits –$9,544,757 $4,483,727 $4,223,492 $3,950,388 $3,809,010 $24,931,477 $2,353,355
B. Quantified impacts in non-dollars (e.g. risk assessment)
Positive impacts (avoided accidents (see footnote *)) Reduction of approximately 200 fall-related injuries per year and approximately 1 fall-related fatality every 4 years.
Negative impacts High initial costs in first year relative to other years.
C. Qualitative impacts
Qualitative impacts: Safer workplaces, increased productivity, improved employee morale, increased awareness of workplace safety.
Distribution analysis
Gender analysis

Of the almost 50 000 occupational injuries in Canada caused by falls in 2014 for all jurisdictions and that resulted in time away from work, approximately 57% afflicted males and 43% afflicted females. When broken down by type of fall, the differences are more pronounced. Injuries resulting from falls or jumps to lower levels are more likely to involve males, 75% versus 25% for females. For falls on the same level, the difference is small, with females accounting for 52% to 48% for males. In terms of the 66 occupational fatalities from falls in Canada in 2014, 62 involved males versus 4 for females. (see footnote 5)

Age analysis

In 2014, workers over 45 had a slightly higher incidence rate for occupational injuries and fatalities from falls than did workers younger than 45.

Industry analysis

The cost distribution across sectors is as follows: road transport, 30%; air transport, 19%; communications, 18%; postal contractors, 12%, rail transport, 8%; water transport, 6% and the remaining 7% spread out across other sectors. These estimates are approximate.

“One-for-One” Rule

The proposed amendments would eliminate administrative record keeping by employers with respect to certain personal protective equipment. The “One-for-One” Rule would therefore apply to the proposed amendments, which would be considered an “OUT” under the Rule.

The Regulations currently prescribe that employers maintain records of all personal protective equipment they provide, including disposable equipment such as hand gloves and hearing protection, which do not require regular inspection or testing. The proposed amendments would clarify that these requirements are only applicable to non-disposable personal protective equipment that requires regular inspection or testing.

As a result of this reduced administrative burden, it is estimated each affected employer would, on average, spend one hour less per year at each of their work sites. It is estimated approximately 5 052 employers will be affected, with an average number of work sites per employer averaging 2.77. Savings per work site, per year, are estimated at approximately $32.81 (including overhead, 2012 dollars), leading to total savings of approximately $3.3 million (present value, 2012 dollars) over 10 years (2016–2025) across the federal jurisdiction. Annualized average total savings (discounted to 2012, 2012 dollars) are estimated at approximately $358,020 and annualized average savings per affected employer/business in reduced administrative costs are estimated at approximately $71.

The stakeholders were consulted and have expressed their support for modifying the wording slightly to clarify that employers are only to keep records of the protection equipment that is not disposable equipment.

Small business lens

Small businesses were estimated to comprise 80% of the total business enterprises directly affected by the proposed amendments; they therefore make up a considerable share of the total estimated costs of the new regulatory requirements. The breakdown of small businesses by industry is as follows:

Table 2: Percentage of small businesses by affected industry sectors (federal jurisdiction)
Industry Sector Percentage (%) Small Businesses (Estimated)
Tanker trucking 89
Aircraft maintenance, repair and re-fuelling 81
Long shoring 83
Marine transportation (off-board) 83
Telecommunications 73
Rail transportation (off-board) 64

Source: Federal Jurisdiction Injuries Database, Labour Applications 2000 Database, Labour Program, Employment and Social Development Canada.

It is estimated that approximately 4 400 small businesses will be affected by the proposed new fall-protection requirements, encompassing some 5 700 work sites with over 20 000 affected employees, at an average cost of $180 per year per small business. Total costs to small businesses are estimated at approximately $1,261 for the period 2016–2025 (all figures discounted to 2012, in constant 2012 dollars). First year costs are significantly higher given that small businesses will have to develop their fall- protection plans from scratch and provide core training to all employees in this period. In later years, only new employees will require core fall-protection training (2.2% of affected employees), already-trained employees would only require refresher training after three years, and the fall-protection systems would already have been developed and may only require modifications, if applicable.

The only non-labour costs are the actual costs for a professional third-party training provider to teach the course, estimated at $92 for each employee taking the training; this figure is based on a sample of prices given by training providers offering fall-protection training.

A flexible option that would provide an offset to the increased costs stemming from the proposed Regulations was also considered for small businesses. Under this option, employers would no longer be required to maintain records for personal protective equipment that does not require regular testing or inspection. This would reduce the associated net costs of the proposed Regulations by approximately 21% or some $270 (present value) per small business over 10 years. This exemption for certain types of personal protective equipment was subsequently applied to all affected businesses and is reflected in the “‘One-for-One' Rule” section of this statement to show the reduction in the administrative burden associated with these amendments.

Table 3: Summary of small business lens
Short description

Flexible Option

Administrative Offset

Initial Option

No Administrative Offset
Number of small businesses impacted 4 401 4 401
  Annualized Average (2012 dollars) Present Value (2012 dollars) Annualized Average (2012 dollars) Present Value (2012 dollars)
Compliance costs $790,200 $5,549,800 $790,200 $5,549,800
Administrative costs -$169,800 -$1,192,600    
Total costs $620,400 $4,357,200 $790,200 $5,549,800
Average cost per small business $141 $990 $180 $1,261
Risk considerations n/a n/a

Consultation

Between 2009 and 2011, the Labour Program engaged employers, employees and provincial governments through a working group. Through this engagement, stakeholders expressed their support for the proposed amendments, with two non-consensus items identified.

1. The first non-consensus item is related to eye protection. Employee representatives proposed that employers provide employees with sunglasses that meet the appropriate standard, where eye protection against ultraviolet radiation associated with sunlight is required. The employers believed that this was already covered by the currently referenced CSA Standard on Eye and Face Protectors and did not see a need to create a specific section regarding sunglasses.

The Labour Program's position is that the incorporated Standard Z94.3, Eye and face protectors, in the proposed amendments already addresses the issue of sun protection for outdoor workers. Therefore, it is unnecessary to itemize sunglasses specifically as there are many types of eye and face protectors that are covered by the referenced standard.

2. The second non-consensus item is related to protection equipment. The current interpretation of the Regulations requires employers to provide all personal protective equipment free of charge, except for safety headwear and footwear. The employee group proposed that safety headwear and footwear also be provided free of charge. The employer group did not agree that employers should provide all personal protective equipment at no cost to the employee as the choice of protective headwear and footwear is highly subjective and varies for each employee.

Taking into consideration that Part XII and most jurisdictions in Canada do not require the employer to pay for safety headwear and footwear, and that health and safety has never been raised as a concern in this regard since Part XII has always required employees to use safety headwear and footwear when faced with a hazard of injury to the head or foot, the Labour Program's position is that the status quo be maintained, such that the employer not be required to provide safety headwear and footwear free of charge to the employees.

Since those consultations, ongoing meetings with the stakeholders through the Labour Program's Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee have been held, and each time, the stakeholders reiterated their support for the proposed amendments and their desire to see them enforced as soon as possible.

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation

The proposed amendments include updated or new references to standards from the CSA and from relevant industrial standards from the United States. CSA standards were developed and formally approved by technical committees composed of employee and employer representatives as well as federal and provincial government experts. The technical committees consider other international standards before a standard is submitted to the Standards Council of Canada for approval as a National Standard of Canada.

The addition of the reference to the ANSI American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection for protective headwear helps to harmonize the Regulations with those of other jurisdictions, namely the provinces and territories as well as the United States, that prescribe industrial hardhats approved by the CSA and ANSI.

The proposed amendments would also change the required distances at 3 m for fall-protection systems to ensure harmonization with other jurisdictions in the country as they use 3 m. The Regulations currently require that fall-protection systems be provided when employees are working at a height of 2.4 m from an unguarded structure, on a vehicle or a ladder.

Rationale

Part XII of the COHSR prescribes the use of safety materials, equipment, devices and clothing for employees and persons granted access to the workplace. The use of these items is prescribed in cases where it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate or control a health or safety hazard. The proposed amendments would update references to Canadian and international standards, allowing them to reflect current technologies and safety practices required in the workplace. In addition, implementing these changes would provide superior protection for employees using safety materials, equipment, devices and clothing. The proposed amendments would bring the technical requirements up to industry standards and would make them more consistent with the legislation of other Canadian jurisdictions.

The proposed amendments would provide the greatest overall benefit to stakeholders. Although most employers comply voluntarily with the latest standards and references, the proposed amendments would facilitate implementation and provide certainty. The modernization of fall-protection systems was found to result in a significant resource impact. It is estimated that the proposed amendments would reduce the rates of fall-related injuries and fatalities by 5.7% and result in an NPV of $19,767,823. Additionally, the proposed Regulations would generate administrative burden reductions for stakeholders totalling $5,163,654 (NPV).

The proposed amendments were developed following a thorough review by a working group comprising employees and employers. On the basis of this review, it was decided to update and modernize the Regulations to ensure that employees are using the most recent and appropriate safety material, equipment, devices, and clothing. This approach to OHS issues would harmonize the technical requirements with those under other parts of the COHSR, the Code and the legislation of other Canadian jurisdictions.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

The working group, when reviewing Part XII, recommended the development of guidelines to accompany the Regulations. The guidelines would serve as a complement to the proposed amendments to explain the rationale behind the changes and ensure that employers and employees find ways of complying with the Regulations (e.g. to explain the hierarchy of preventive measures when choosing a fall-protection system). The guidelines would be established in consultation with stakeholders and are expected to be ready for the coming into force of the amendments.

Overall, the Labour Program's compliance policy outlines the proactive and reactive activities used by delegated officials to ensure compliance. While OHS policy committees and workplace committees are the primary mechanisms through which employers and employees work together to solve job-related health and safety problems, the employer remains ultimately responsible for workplace health and safety. Delegated officials assist the industry in establishing and implementing policy committees and workplace committees, and related programs.

The statutory powers of delegated officials allow them to enter work sites and perform various activities to enforce compliance with the Code and the Regulations. For example, delegated officials may conduct safety audits and inspections. They may also investigate the circumstances surrounding the report of a contravention, work accident, refusal to work, or hazardous occurrence.

If violations of the Regulations are observed and are not resolved internally by policy and workplace committees, enforcement actions towards the employer for non- compliance would be used by a delegated official. Enforcement actions may range from the issuance of a written notice to further steps such as the initiation of prosecution. Initially, an attempt to correct non-compliance with the Regulations, when non-compliance does not represent a dangerous condition, is made through the issuance of an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC). An AVC is a written commitment that a contravention will be corrected within a specified time. Failure to complete the corrective actions specified in the AVC may lead the delegated officials to issue a direction. A direction is issued whenever a serious contravention or dangerous condition exists and when an AVC is not obtainable or has not been fulfilled. Failure to comply with a direction is a violation of the Code and as such is enforceable by prosecution. Offences can lead to imprisonment. The maximum penalty for offences is, on summary conviction, a fine of $1M, or on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine of $1M.

Contact

Doris Berthiaume
Senior Policy Analyst
Occupational Health and Safety Policy Unit
Program Development and Guidance Directorate
Labour Program
Employment and Social Development Canada
165 Hôtel-de-Ville Street
Place du Portage, Phase II, 10th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0J2
Telephone: 819-654-4445
Email: doris.berthiaume@labour-travail.gc.ca

Annex A: Small Business Lens Checklist

1. Name of the sponsoring regulatory organization:

Department of Employment and Social Development — Labour Program

2. Title of the regulatory proposal:

Regulations Amending the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations

3. Is the checklist submitted with a RIAS for the Canada Gazette, Part I or Part II?

☑ Canada Gazette, Part I ☐ Canada Gazette, Part II

A. Small business regulatory design
I Communication and transparency Yes No N/A
1. Are the proposed Regulations or requirements easily understandable in everyday language? ☑ ☐ ☐
2. Is there a clear connection between the requirements and the purpose (or intent) of the proposed Regulations? ☑ ☐ ☐
3. Will there be an implementation plan that includes communications and compliance promotion activities, that informs small business of a regulatory change and guides them on how to comply with it (e.g. information sessions, sample assessments, toolkits, Web sites)? ☑ ☐ ☐
4. If new forms, reports or processes are introduced, are they consistent in appearance and format with other relevant government forms, reports or processes? ☐ ☐ ☑
These proposed Regulations do not require new forms, reports or processes.
II Simplification and streamlining Yes No N/A
1. Will streamlined processes be put in place (e.g. through BizPaL, Canada Border Services Agency single window) to collect information from small businesses where possible? ☐ ☐ ☑
These proposed Regulations do not collect information from small businesses.
2. Have opportunities to align with other obligations imposed on business by federal, provincial, municipal or international or multinational regulatory bodies been assessed? ☑ ☐ ☐
The proposed amendments include updated or new standards from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and from relevant industrial standards from the United States. CSA standards are developed taking into consideration international standards.
3. Has the impact of the proposed Regulations on international or interprovincial trade been assessed? ☐ ☐ ☑
These proposed Regulations do not have any impact on international or interprovincial trade.
4. If the data or information, other than personal information, required to comply with the proposed Regulations is already collected by another department or jurisdiction, will this information be obtained from that department or jurisdiction instead of requesting the same information from small businesses or other stakeholders? (The collection, retention, use, disclosure and disposal of personal information are all subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act. Any questions with respect to compliance with the Privacy Act should be referred to the department's or agency's ATIP office or legal services unit.) ☐ ☐ ☑
These proposed Regulations do not collect information or personal information.
5. Will forms be pre-populated with information or data already available to the department to reduce the time and cost necessary to complete them? (Example: When a business completes an online application for a licence, upon entering an identifier or a name, the system pre-populates the application with the applicant's personal particulars such as contact information, date, etc. when that information is already available to the department.) ☐ ☐ ☑
These proposed Regulations do not collect any new information or new data.
6. Will electronic reporting and data collection be used, including electronic validation and confirmation of receipt of reports where appropriate? ☐ ☐ ☑
These proposed Regulations do not contain any requirements for electronic reporting and data collection to be used, including electronic validation and confirmation of receipt of reports.
7. Will reporting, if required by the proposed Regulations, be aligned with generally used business processes or international standards if possible? ☐ ☐ ☑
These proposed Regulations do not contain any reporting requirements.
8. If additional forms are required, can they be streamlined with existing forms that must be completed for other government information requirements? ☐ ☐ ☑
These proposed Regulations do not require any additional forms.
III Implementation, compliance and service standards Yes No N/A
1. Has consideration been given to small businesses in remote areas, with special consideration to those that do not have access to high-speed (broadband) Internet? ☐ ☐ ☑
These proposed Regulations do not require small businesses to access high-speed Internet.
2. If regulatory authorizations (e.g. licences, permits or certifications) are introduced, will service standards addressing timeliness of decision making be developed that are inclusive of complaints about poor service? ☐ ☐ ☑
These Regulations do not create licences, permits, certification or other documents.
3. Is there a clearly identified contact point or help desk for small businesses and other stakeholders? ☑ ☐ ☐
Small businesses and other stakeholders are encouraged to use the Labour Program's toll-free (1-800) number to report a serious injury, death or refusal to work in relation to this regulatory proposal. The contact information can be found in the first paragraph on the Department's website located at http://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/labour-contact.html.
B. Regulatory flexibility analysis and reverse onus

IV

Regulatory flexibility analysis

Yes

No

N/A

1.

Does the RIAS identify at least one flexible option that has lower compliance or administrative costs for small businesses in the small business lens section?

Examples of flexible options to minimize costs are as follows:

  • Longer time periods to comply with the requirements, longer transition periods or temporary exemptions;
  • Performance-based standards;
  • Partial or complete exemptions from compliance, especially for firms that have good track records (legal advice should be sought when considering such an option);
  • Reduced compliance costs;
  • Reduced fees or other charges or penalties;
  • Use of market incentives;
  • A range of options to comply with requirements, including lower-cost options;
  • Simplified and less frequent reporting obligations and inspections; and
  • Licences granted on a permanent basis or renewed less frequently.
 ☑ ☐ ☐

The Regulations currently prescribe that employers maintain records of all personal protective equipment they provide, including disposable equipment such as hand gloves and hearing protection, which do not require regular inspection or testing. The proposed amendments would clarify that these requirements are only applicable to non-disposable personal protective equipment that requires regular inspection or testing.

2.

Does the RIAS include, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement, quantified and monetized compliance and administrative costs for small businesses associated with the initial option assessed, as well as the flexible, lower-cost option?

 ☑ ☐ ☐

The RIAS includes a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement.

3.

Does the RIAS include, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement, a consideration of the risks associated with the flexible option? (Minimizing administrative or compliance costs for small business cannot be at the expense of greater health, security or safety or create environmental risks for Canadians.)

 ☑ ☐ ☐

4.

Does the RIAS include a summary of feedback provided by small business during consultations?

 ☑ ☐ ☐

The RIAS includes a statement on the flexible option as well as a summary of the feedback provided by small businesses during consultations.

V

Reverse onus

Yes

No

N/A

1.

If the recommended option is not the lower-cost option for small business in terms of administrative or compliance costs, is a reasonable justification provided in the RIAS?

 ☐ ☐ ☑

The flexible option was recommended.

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to sections 125 (see footnote a), 126 (see footnote b) and 157 (see footnote c) of the Canada Labour Code (see footnote d), proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning 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 addressed to Doris Berthiaume, Senior Policy Analyst, Occupational Health and Safety Policy Unit, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development, Place du Portage, Phase II, 10th Floor, Room 10D165, 165 Hôtel-de-Ville Street, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0J2 (tel.: 819-654-4445; email: doris.berthiaume@labour-travail.gc.ca).

Ottawa, March 9, 2017

Jurica Čapkun
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations

Amendments

1 Section 1.7 of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (see footnote 6) is repealed.

2 Paragraph 2.18(1)(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

3 Paragraph 11.9(3)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

4 Part XII of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

PART XII

Protection Equipment and Other Preventive Measures

Interpretation

12.01 The following definitions apply in this Part.

CBRN agent means a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agent. (agent CBRN)

control zone means an area extending backwards from an unguarded edge to a visually demarcated line that signals the existence of a falling hazard or warns a person not to approach the unguarded edge. (zone de contrôle)

fall-arrest system means a collection of protection equipment that attaches a person to an anchorage and is designed and configured to arrest a free fall. (dispositif antichute)

fall-protection system means a system that is designed and configured to eliminate or reduce the risk of a person falling, restrain a person who is at risk of falling or arrest a person's fall. The system may be composed of one or more of the following:

fall-restraint system means a collection of protection equipment that attaches a person to an anchorage and is designed and configured to prevent a person from getting close to an unguarded edge. (dispositif de retenue contre les chutes)

passive fall-protection system means a physical barrier that is designed and installed to prevent a person from falling, including a guardrail, fence, barricade or cover. (dispositif passif de protection contre les chutes)

personal fall-protection system means a fall-restraint system or fall-arrest system. (dispositif individuel de protection contre les chutes)

12.02 (1) In this Part, any reference to a standard is to be read as a reference to the most recent version of that standard.

(2) Any amendment to a CSA standard or Canadian General Standards Board standard that is incorporated by reference in this Part is effective on the 30th day after the day on which the amendment is published by the CSA or Canadian General Standards Board, as the case may be, in both official languages.

General

12.03 (1) If it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate a health or safety hazard in a work place or to reduce it to within safe limits and the use of protection equipment may eliminate or reduce the risk of injury from that hazard, every person who is granted access to the work place and who is exposed to that hazard must use the protection equipment prescribed by this Part.

(2) Despite subsection (1), a person who provides instruction and training in the provision of emergency rescue services or who is instructed and trained in the provision of those services and provides them in an emergency situation may use protection equipment other than the equipment that is prescribed by this Part.

12.04 Any protection equipment that is provided or used in a work place and any passive fall-protection systems and control zones that are put in place in a work place must be designed to protect the person from the hazard in question and must not in themselves create a hazard.

12.05 All protection equipment that is provided by an employer must

12.06 Passive fall-protection systems and any components of a control zone that require installation or maintenance must be

Fall Protection

Fall-protection Plan

12.07 (1) If there is a risk of injury due to falling in a work place, the employer must, before any work activities begin,

(2) The fall-protection plan must specify

(3) The fall-protection systems referred to in paragraph (2)(b) are to be chosen as appropriate for the work area and activity in question, taking into account the following order of priority:

(4) The clearance distance referred to in paragraph (2)(d) must be sufficient to prevent a person from hitting the ground or an object or level below the work area during a fall.

Fall-protection Systems

12.08 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an employer must provide or put in place a fall-protection system if work is to be performed

(2) If an employee is required to work on a vehicle and it is not reasonably practicable to provide or put in place a fall-protection system, an employer must

(3) The job safety analysis, instruction and training referred to in paragraph (2)(a) must be reviewed every two years in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative.

12.09 (1) A control zone must extend at least 3 m backwards from the unguarded edge, along the entire length of that edge.

(2) A control zone must not be used unless the surface on which it is established has a slope of five degrees or less.

(3) If an activity needs to be carried out in a control zone,

(4) If a control zone has been established in a work place, the employer must ensure that every person who is granted access to the work place is informed of the control zone's existence and is familiar with the procedures to be followed for entering the control zone.

Protection Equipment and Procedures

Fall Protection

12.1 (1) If there is a risk of injury due to falling in a work place and the fall-protection plan requires that a personal fall-protection system be used, the employer must provide a personal fall-protection system to every person who is granted access to the work place.

(2) A personal fall-protection system must meet the requirements set out in the following CSA standards:

(3) The components of a personal fall-protection system must meet the requirements set out in the following CSA standards:

(4) The components of a personal fall-protection system must be compatible and must be used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

(5) If more than one personal fall-protection system is secured to an anchorage, a separate anchorage connector must be used for each personal fall-protection system.

(6) An anchorage connector for a fall-restraint system must have, in any direction in which a load may be applied, a total load capacity of at least 8 kN.

(7) An anchorage connector for a vertical lifeline system of a fall-arrest system must have, in any direction in which a load may be applied, a total load capacity of at least 17.8 kN.

(8) The employer must ensure that a person who is using a personal fall-protection system wears and uses a full body harness.

(9) The employer must ensure that, before each work shift, every employee inspects their personal fall- protection system in accordance with the fall-protection plan.

(10) A fall-arrest system must

(11) The employer must ensure that a person who works on an aerial device, boom-type elevating platform, scissor lift platform, forklift truck platform or any similar personnel lifting equipment in the circumstances described in subsection 12.08(1) uses a fall-restraint system that is connected to

(12) If the use of a fall-restraint system would prevent the person referred to in subsection (11) from carrying out their work, the employer must ensure that a fall-arrest system is used.

(13) If a person carries out an activity in a control zone or crosses a control zone to get to or from a work area, they must use a personal fall-protection system.

Protective Headwear

12.11 (1) Subject to subsection (2), if there is a risk of head injury in a work place, the employer must ensure that protective headwear that meets the requirements set out in CSA Standard Z94.1, Industrial protective headwear — Performance, selection, care, and use, or in ANSI Standard Z89.1, American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection, is worn.

(2) If the employer, in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, determines that the protective headwear referred to in subsection (1) does not eliminate or reduce the risk of injury, the employer must ensure that appropriate protective headwear selected by the employer, in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, is worn.

Protective Footwear

12.12 (1) Subject to subsection (3), if there is a risk of foot injury or electric shock in a work place, the employer must ensure that protective footwear that meets the requirements set out in CSA Standard Z195, Protective footwear is worn.

(2) If there is a risk of injury due to slipping in a work place, the employer must ensure that slip-resistant footwear is worn.

(3) If the employer, in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, determines that the protective footwear referred to in subsection (1) does not eliminate or reduce the risk of injury, the employer must ensure that appropriate protective footwear selected by the employer, in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, is worn.

Eye and Face Protection

12.13 (1) If there is a risk of injury to the eyes or face in a work place, the employer must provide every person who is granted access to the work place with an eye or face protector that is selected by the employer in accordance with Annex A of CSA Standard Z94.3, Eye and face protectors, and that meets the requirements set out in that standard.

(2) If there is routine exposure to irritating airborne chemical agents, intense heat, liquid splashes, molten metals or similar agents in a work place, contact lenses must not be worn.

Respiratory Protection

12.14 (1) If there is a risk of injury or disease due to exposure to an airborne hazardous substance, other than a CBRN agent, or an oxygen-deficient atmosphere in a work place, the employer must provide every person who is granted access to the work place with a respiratory protective device that

(2) If air is provided by means of a respiratory protective device referred to in subsection (1), the air and the system that supplies the air, including its cylinders, must meet the requirements set out in CSA Standard Z180.1, Compressed breathing air and systems.

(3) If there is a risk of injury or disease due to exposure to CBRN agents in a work place, the employer must provide every person who is granted access to the work place with a respiratory protective device for protection against those CBRN agents that

(4) The employer must ensure that a respiratory protective device referred to in subsection (1) and subparagraph (3)(b)(i) is used and cared for in accordance with CSA Standard Z94.4, Selection, use, and care of respirators.

Skin Protection

12.15 (1) If there is a risk of injury or disease to or by way of the skin in a work place, the employer must provide every person who is granted access to the work place with

(2) If sunscreen is provided by the employer, the sunscreen must be broad-spectrum and have a minimum sun protection factor of 30.

Protection Against Drowning

12.16 (1) If there is a risk of drowning in a work place, the employer must

(2) If the work place is a wharf, dock, pier, quay or similar structure, a ladder that extends at least two rungs below water level must be installed on the face of the structure every 60 m along its length.

Loose Clothing

12.17 If there is a risk of injury in a work place that is due to loose clothing, long hair, dangling accessories, jewellery or similar items, the employer must ensure that those items are not worn or are tied, covered or otherwise secured to eliminate or reduce the risk of injury.

Protection Against Moving Vehicles

12.18 If there is a risk of injury in a work place that is due to moving vehicles, the employer must provide every person who is granted access to the work place with high- visibility safety apparel that meets the requirements set out in CSA Standard Z96, High-visibility safety apparel.

Defective Equipment or System

12.19 If an employee finds a defect in protection equipment or in a passive fall-protection system that may render the protection equipment or system unsafe, they must report the defect to their employer as soon as the circumstances permit.

12.2 (1) An employer must remove from service any protection equipment or passive fall-protection system that has a defect that may render it unsafe and must mark or tag that equipment to indicate that it is unsafe for use.

(2) Protection equipment or a passive fall protection system that has a defect that renders it unsafe may only be returned to service if it is restored to good operating condition by a qualified person.

Instruction and Training

12.21 (1) An employer must ensure that every person who is granted access to a work place and who uses protection equipment is provided with instruction in the use of that equipment.

(2) The employer must ensure that, in addition to the instruction referred to in subsection (1), every employee who uses protection equipment is provided with instruction and training in the operation and maintenance of the equipment and training in its use.

(3) If there is a risk of drowning in a work place, the employer must ensure that every person who is granted access to the work place is provided with instruction in respect of the written emergency procedures referred to in paragraph 12.16(1)(e).

(4) The employer must ensure that the instruction referred to in subsections (1) to (3) is summarized in writing and must keep a copy of that summary readily available for consultation by every person who is granted access to the work place.

Records

12.22 (1) An employer must keep a record of all of the protection equipment that is provided by them other than disposable equipment.

(2) The record must contain

(3) The record must be kept at the work place where the protection equipment is located and must continue to be kept there for a period of two years beginning on the day on which the equipment is permanently removed from service or, if a standard referred to in this Part requires that records be kept in respect of that equipment for a longer period, for that longer period.

Coming into Force

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

[11-1-o]