CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

FINDINGS

Aluminum extrusions

Notice is hereby given that, on March 17, 2009, pursuant to subsection 43(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal found that the dumping and subsidizing in Canada of custom-shaped and standard-shaped aluminum extrusions (Inquiry No. NQ-2008-003), excluding certain products, originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China have caused injury to the domestic industry.

Ottawa, March 19, 2009

SUSANNE GRIMES
Acting Secretary

[13-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES

The following notices are abridged versions of the Commission’s original notices bearing the same number. The original notices contain a more detailed outline of the applications, including additional locations and addresses where the complete files may be examined. The relevant material, including the notices and applications, is available for viewing during normal business hours at the following offices of the Commission:

— Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, Room 206, 1 Promenade du Portage, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0N2, 819-997-2429 (telephone), 994-0423 (TDD), 819-994-0218 (fax);

— Metropolitan Place, Suite 1410, 99 Wyse Road, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B3A 4S5, 902-426-7997 (telephone), 426-6997 (TDD), 902-426-2721 (fax);

— Kensington Building, Suite 1810, 275 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2B3, 204-983-6306 (telephone), 983-8274 (TDD), 204-983-6317 (fax);

— 530–580 Hornby Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3B6, 604-666-2111 (telephone), 666-0778 (TDD), 604-666-8322 (fax);

— CRTC Documentation Centre, 205 Viger Avenue W, Suite 504, Montréal, Quebec H2Z 1G2, 514-283-6607 (telephone), 283-8316 (TDD), 514-283-3689 (fax);

— CRTC Documentation Centre, 55 St. Clair Avenue E, Suite 624, Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2, 416-952-9096 (telephone), 416-954-6343 (fax);

— CRTC Documentation Centre, Cornwall Professional Building, Room 103, 2125 11th Avenue, Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3X3, 306-780-3422 (telephone), 306-780-3319 (fax);

— CRTC Documentation Centre, 10405 Jasper Avenue, Suite 520, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3N4, 780-495-3224 (telephone), 780-495-3214 (fax).

Interventions must be filed with the Secretary General, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2, together with proof that a true copy of the intervention has been served upon the applicant, on or before the deadline given in the notice.

Secretary General

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

DECISIONS

The complete texts of the decisions summarized below are available from the offices of the CRTC.

2009-145 March 17, 2009

Various specialty, pay, pay-per-view, video-on-demand, and satellite-to-cable undertakings and community-based television programming undertakings
Across Canada

Approved — Administrative renewals

The Commission renews the broadcasting licences for the various programming undertakings set out in the appendix to this decision from August 31, 2009, to August 31, 2010, subject to the terms and conditions in effect under the current licences.

2009-124-1 March 19, 2009

Tiessen Media Inc.
Airdrie and Cochrane, Alberta

Correction — The Commission corrects CFIT-FM Airdrie and its transmitter CFIT-FM-1 Cochrane — Technical change, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-124, by amending paragraphs 1 and 7 and by adding paragraph 8.

2009-149 March 19, 2009

Manitoulin Radio Communication Inc.
Little Current, Ontario

Approved — Change to the authorized contours of the Type B community radio programming undertaking CFRM-FM Little Current.

[13-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

NOTICE OF CONSULTATION 2009-2-3

Notice of hearing

March 31, 2009
Gatineau, Quebec
Item 10 is withdrawn from this public hearing

Further to Broadcasting Notices of Consultation 2009-2, 2009-2-1, and 2009-2-2, the Commission announces the following:

At the request of the applicant, item 10 is withdrawn from this hearing. The Commission has closed the file on this application.

Item 10

Ottawa, Ontario
Application No. 2007-1206-9

Application by Mark Steven Maheu, on behalf of a corporation to be incorporated, for a licence to operate an English-language commercial FM radio programming undertaking in Ottawa.

March 16, 2009

[13-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

NOTICE OF CONSULTATION 2009-36-4

Notice of hearing

March 30, 2009
Gatineau, Quebec
Items 33 and 37 are withdrawn from this public hearing

Further to its Broadcasting Notices of Consultation CRTC 2009-36, 2009-36-1, 2009-36-2 and 2009-36-3, the Commission announces the following:

The following item is withdrawn from this hearing and will be rescheduled at a later date:

Item 33

Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario
Application No. 2009-0031-7

Application by Radio 710 AM Inc. to acquire the assets of the tourist radio programming undertaking CJRN Niagara Falls from CJRN 710 Inc.

The following item is withdrawn from this hearing given that the Commission was advised by the Department of Industry that this application was not technically acceptable. Therefore, the Commission has closed the file on this application.

Item 37

Gabriola Island, British Columbia
Application No. 2008-1533-4

Application by Gabriola Radio Society for a broadcasting licence to operate an English-language FM Type B community radio programming undertaking on Gabriola Island.

March 19, 2009

[13-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

NOTICE OF CONSULTATION 2009-113-1

Notice of hearing

April 27, 2009
Gatineau, Quebec
Licence renewals for private conventional television stations

Additional document placed on the record of the proceeding — Proposed allocation formula for the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF).

March 17, 2009

[13-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

NOTICE OF CONSULTATION 2009-148

Notice of applications received

Various locations
Deadline for submission of interventions and/or comments: April 23, 2009

The Commission has received the following applications:

1. Coopérative de radiodiffusion MF 103,5 de Lanaudière
    Joliette, Quebec

Relating to the licence of the commercial radio programming undertaking CJLM-FM Joliette.

2. Radio communautaire de la Rive-Sud inc.
    Longueuil, Quebec

Relating to the licence of the French-language Type B community radio programming undertaking CHAA-FM Longueuil.

March 19, 2009

[13-1-o]

(Erratum)

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW COMMISSION

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW ACT

Decisions and orders on claims for exemption

In the notice of decisions and orders on claims for exemption published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, Vol. 142, No. 52, dated Saturday, December 27, 2008, on page 3227, the product identifier for the claim assigned Registry Number 6596 was given as PARALOID (TM) KM-342B Impact Modifier and the product identifier for the claim assigned Registry Number 6601 was given as PARALOID (TM) K-440L Processing Aid.

Notice is hereby given that the product identifiers were in fact PARALOID™ KM-399 Impact Modifier and PARALOID™ K-440 Processing Aid respectively.

R. BOARDMAN
Chief Screening Officer

[13-1-o]

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW COMMISSION

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW ACT

Decisions, undertakings and orders on claims for exemption

Pursuant to paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, the Chief Screening Officer of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission hereby gives notice of the decisions of the screening officer, respecting each claim for exemption and the relevant material safety data sheet (MSDS) listed below.

Notes: 1. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on April 1, 2006, listed the subject of the claims bearing Registry Numbers 6435 and 6446 to be the chemical identity of six and two ingredients respectively. The subjects of the claims on which the screening officer issued the decisions are the chemical identity of five ingredients and one ingredient respectively.

2. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on April 1, 2006, listed the subject of the claim bearing Registry Number 6532 to be the chemical identity of one ingredient. The subject of the claim on which the screening officer issued the decision is the chemical identity of two ingredients.

3. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on July 15, 2006, listed the subject of the claim bearing Registry Number 6638 to be the chemical identity of seven ingredients. The subject of the claim on which the screening officer issued the decision is the chemical identity of five ingredients.

4. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on December 2, 2006, listed the subject of the claim bearing Registry Number 6731 to be the chemical identity of five ingredients. The subject of the claim on which the screening officer issued the decision is the chemical identity of six ingredients. The Notice also incorrectly listed the name of the company which filed the claim bearing Registry Number 6731 as Kop-Coat. The correct company name is Kop-Coat, Inc.

5. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on December 2, 2006, listed the subject of the claims bearing Registry Numbers 6751, 6753, 6754, 6755, 6756, 6758, 6759, 6761 and 6763 to be the chemical identity of two ingredients. The subjects of the claims on which the screening officer issued the decisions are the chemical identity of three, four, three, three, four, three, four, four, and four ingredients, respectively.

6. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on March 24, 2007, listed the subject of the claim bearing Registry Number 6837 to be the chemical identity of two ingredients. The subject of the claim on which the screening officer issued the decision is the chemical identity and concentration of two ingredients.

7. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 30, 2007, listed the subject of the claims bearing Registry Numbers 6931 and 6932 to be the chemical identity of two ingredients. The subject of the claims on which the screening officer issued the decisions is the chemical identity of one ingredient.

8. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 30, 2007, listed the subject of the claim bearing Registry Number 6961 to be the chemical identity of one ingredient. The subject of the claim on which the screening officer issued the decision is the chemical identity of two ingredients.

9. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 30, 2007, listed the subject of the claim bearing Registry Number 7007 to be the chemical identity of three ingredients. The subject of the claim on which the screening officer issued the decision is the chemical identity of two ingredients.

10. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on September 8, 2007, listed the subject of the claims bearing Registry Numbers 7052 through 7065 to be the chemical identity of one ingredient. The subject of the claims on which the screening officer issued the decisions is the chemical identity of two ingredients.

11. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on September 8, 2007, listed the subject of the claims bearing Registry Numbers 7066 and 7067 to be the chemical identity of one ingredient. The subjects of the claims on which the screening officer issued the decisions are the chemical identity of three and two ingredients, respectively.

12. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on September 8, 2007, listed the subject of the claim bearing Registry Number 7097 to be the chemical identity of two ingredients. The subject of the claim on which the screening officer issued the decision is the chemical identity of three ingredients.

13. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on September 8, 2007, listed the subject of the claim bearing Registry Number 7100 to be the chemical identity and concentration of three ingredients. The subject of the claim on which the screening officer issued the decision is the chemical identity and concentration of two ingredients. The Notice also incorrectly listed the name of the company which filed the claim bearing Registry Number 7100 as CESI Chemicals. The correct company name is CESI Chemicals Inc.

14. The Notice of Filing published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 2, 2008, listed the subject of the claim bearing Registry Number 7128 to be the chemical identity of eight ingredients. The subject of the claim on which the screening officer issued the decision is the chemical identity of four ingredients.

There were no submissions from affected parties to the screening officer with respect to any of the above claims for exemption and related MSDSs.

Each of the claims for exemption listed above was found to be valid. The screening officer reached this decision after reviewing the information in support of the claim, having regard exclusively to the criteria found in section 3 of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Regulations. Having regard for the various data readily available in the literature and any information provided by the claimant, the screening officer found that the respective MSDS in respect of which the claims bearing Registry Numbers 6612, 6874, 6875, 7042, 7043, 7127, 7129, 7185, 7201 and 7263 were filed complied with the applicable disclosure requirements of the Hazardous Products Act and the Controlled Products Regulations.

In the case of the claims bearing Registry Numbers 6528, 6532, 6669, 6670 and 6737, being claims from an employer in the province of Alberta, the screening officer found that the MSDSs relating to these claims did not comply with the applicable disclosure requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Code 2006 of the Province of Alberta.

Having regard for the various data readily available in the literature and any information provided by the claimant, the screening officer found that the respective MSDS in respect of which the remaining claims were filed did not comply with the applicable disclosure requirements of the Hazardous Products Act and the Controlled Products Regulations.

In all cases where the material safety data sheet was determined not to be in compliance with the relevant legislation, the screening officer offered the claimant the possibility of entering into an undertaking to make the changes necessary to bring the MSDS into compliance. Pursuant to subsection 16.1(1) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, the claimant was given 30 days to provide the screening officer with a signed undertaking accompanied by the MSDS amended as necessary.

In the case of the following claims, the claimant supplied the screening officer with a signed undertaking accompanied by the MSDS amended as necessary within the time frame specified. The screening officer was satisfied that the claimant had taken the measures set out in the undertaking in the manner and within the period specified therein.

CLAIMS WHERE SCREENING OFFICER SATISFIED THE CLAIMANT
HAS TAKEN MEASURES SET OUT IN THE UNDERTAKING

Pursuant to paragraph 18(1)(b) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, the Chief Screening Officer of the Haz-ardous Materials Information Review Commission hereby gives notice of any information that has been disclosed on the relevant material safety data sheet in compliance with an undertaking.

Registry Number 6426

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 5, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

Registry Number 6558

Date of order notice confirming acceptance: January 14, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Correct the impression that naphthalene and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene are regulated components of the controlled product.

Registry Number 6562

Date of notice confirming acceptance: October 31, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give large quantities of water to drink.

Registry Number 6613

Date of order notice confirming acceptance: January 14, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Correct the impression that naphthalene and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene are regulated components of the controlled product.

Registry Number 6618

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 5, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

Registry Number 6638

Date of order notice confirming acceptance: January 7, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Remove the inferences that the ingredients known as alkylated phenols and light naphthenic distillate were a part of the claim for exemption.

Registry Number 6694

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 7, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

Registry Number 6709

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 15, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose that one ingredient in the controlled product has been classified as a confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown relevance to humans (A3) by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).

Registry Number 6777

Date of notice confirming acceptance: November 25, 2008

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose an LD₅₀ (dermal, rabbit) value of 3 600 mg/kg for hexamethylene diacrylate;

2. Disclose the Exposure Limit Value AIHA WEEL–TWA = 1 mg/m³ (skin, DSEN), for hexamethylene diacrylate;

3. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause mutagenic effects in mammalian cells, in vitro.

Registry Number 6815

Date of notice confirming acceptance: October 31, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give large quantities of water to drink.

Registry Number 6823

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 9, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. If the WHMIS classifications are stated on the MSDS, disclose that the controlled product is also in class D1B;

2. If the WHMIS pictograms are displayed on the MSDS, disclose the appropriate hazard symbol for a poisonous substance;

3. Disclose a lower LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 1 200 mg/kg for the alkanolamine.

Registry Numbers 6832 to 6834, inclusive

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 8, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 20.6 g/kg for aliphatic glycol ether;

2. Registry Number 6834: Add oxides of nitrogen and sulphur to the list of hazardous decomposition products.

Registry Numbers 6836 to 6840, inclusive

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 8, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 20.6 g/kg for aliphatic glycol ether;

2. Registry Number 6836: Add oxides of nitrogen and sulphur to the list of hazardous decomposition products;

3. Registry Number 6837: Add hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulphur to the list of hazardous decomposition products;

4. Registry Number 6840:

(a) Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to be corrosive to the eyes of laboratory animals;

(b) In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for eye contact, disclose a statement to the effect that the eyes should be flushed continuously with water for 30 minutes;

5. Registry Numbers 6838 and 6839: Add oxides of nitrogen and sulphur to the list of hazardous decomposition products.

Registry Number 6872

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 19, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the Exposure Limit Value AIHA WEEL–TWA = 1 mg/m³ (skin, DSEN), for hexamethylene diacrylate;

2. Add hydrogen chloride to the list of hazardous decomposition products;

3. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause mutagenic effects in mammalian cells, in vitro.

Registry Number 6873

Date of notice confirming acceptance: November 25, 2008

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the presence of an additional hazardous ingredient in the controlled product, together with its CAS registry number and percent concentration;

2. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 1 190 mg/kg and an LD₅₀ (dermal, rabbit) value of 118 mg/kg for hydroxypropyl acrylate;

3. Add hydrogen chloride to the list of hazardous decomposition products;

4. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for skin contact, disclose a statement to the effect that the skin should be flushed with water for at least 30 minutes or until the chemical is removed;

5. If the WHMIS classifications are stated on the MSDS, disclose that the controlled product is also in class D1A.

Registry Number 6895

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 5, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose that one ingredient in the controlled product has been classified as a confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown relevance to humans (A3) by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH);

2. Disclose LD₅₀ values for one of the confidential hazardous ingredients in an acceptable manner;

3. Disclose an LD₅₀ value and an LC₅₀ value for one of the confidential hazardous ingredients in an acceptable manner;

4. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has shown positive results in a screening test for mutagenicity;

5. Disclose that ingredients in the controlled product have been shown to cause fetotoxic effects in laboratory animals at maternally toxic dose levels;

6. If the WHMIS classifications are stated on the MSDS, disclose that the controlled product is also in class D1A.

Registry Number 6909

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 22, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the percent concentrations of phenol and formaldehyde in an acceptable manner;

2. Disclose the lower LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 340 mg/kg for phenol;

3. If the WHMIS classifications are stated on the MSDS, disclose that the controlled product is also in class D1A.

Registry Number 6926

Date of notice confirming acceptance: November 18, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the Exposure Limit Value ACGIH TLVBTWA = 0.025 mg/m³ (respirable fraction) A2 for crystalline silica, quartz;

2. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for skin contact, disclose that flushing should continue for at least 60 minutes;

3. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for eye contact, disclose a statement to the effect that any dry or wet product on the face should be quickly and gently blotted away and then the eyes should be flushed continuously with lukewarm, gently flowing water for 60 minutes;

4. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give water to drink.

Registry Number 6931

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 19, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Add oxides of sulphur to the list of hazardous combustion products.

Registry Number 6932

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 19, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Add oxides of carbon and nitrogen to the list of hazardous combustion products.

Registry Number 6961

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 19, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for eye contact, disclose a statement to the effect that the eyes should be flushed continuously with large amounts of water for at least 30 minutes;

2. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for skin contact, disclose a statement to the effect that the skin should be flushed continuously with large amounts of water for at least 30 minutes;

3. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give two glasses of water and add advice to the effect that the casualty should lean forward should vomiting occur in order to reduce the risk of aspiration;

4. Add oxides of nitrogen to the list of hazardous combustion products;

5. Disclose an LC₅₀ (1 hour, rat) range of 1.26 mg/L to 2.83 mg/L for synthetic amorphous silica;

6. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause mutagenic effects in mammalian cells, in vitro.

Registry Numbers 6962 and 6964

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 15, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give two glasses of water;

2. Registry Number 6964:

(a) Disclose the percent concentration of alkyl sulfonate sodium salt in an acceptable manner;

(b) Disclose an LD₅₀ (dermal, rabbit) value of 13.3 mL/kg for hexylene glycol.

Registry Number 6974

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 19, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for eye contact, disclose a statement to the effect that the eyes should be flushed continuously with large amounts of water for at least 30 minutes;

2. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for skin contact, disclose a statement to the effect that the skin should be flushed continuously with large amounts of water for at least 30 minutes;

3. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give two glasses of water and add advice to the effect that the casualty should lean forward should vomiting occur in order to reduce the risk of aspiration;

4. Add oxides of nitrogen to the list of hazardous combustion products;

5. Disclose an LC₅₀ (1 hour, rat) range of 1.26 mg/L to 2.83 mg/L for synthetic amorphous silica;

6. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause mutagenic effects in mammalian cells, in vitro.

Registry Number 7007

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 8, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the correct name and address of the supplier and manufacturer of the controlled product;

2. Remove the inference that the ingredient known as a polyalkylene glycol was a part of the claim for exemption.

Registry Number 7028

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 22, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose that the controlled product is corrosive to the skin;

2. In relation to the period of time shown on the MSDS for flushing the eyes with water should eye contact occur, delete the current time frame and replace it with a time of 30 minutes;

3. In relation to the period of time shown on the MSDS for flushing the skin with water should skin contact occur, delete the current time frame and replace it with a time of 30 minutes;

4. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to dilute with plenty of water and add advice to the effect that the casualty should lean forward should vomiting occur in order to reduce the risk of aspiration.

Registry Number 7029

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 22, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below:

1. Add oxides of nitrogen and sulphur to the list of hazardous decomposition products.

Registry Number 7051

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 17, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

Registry Numbers 7052 to 7067, inclusive

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 29, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the generic chemical identity of an additional confidential hazardous ingredient in the controlled product, disclose its concentration in an acceptable manner and disclose that the real chemical identity is included in the claim for exemption;

2. Disclose an LD₅₀ value for one of the confidential hazardous ingredients in an acceptable manner;

3. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, modify or remove the statement to give one to two glasses of water to drink;

4. Registry Number 7066: Disclose the generic chemical identity of a second additional confidential hazardous ingredient in the controlled product, disclose its concentration in an acceptable manner and disclose that the real chemical identity is included in the claim for exemption;

5. Registry Numbers 7052 to 7059, inclusive and 7061 to 7066, inclusive: Disclose LD₅₀ values for another of the confidential hazardous ingredients in an acceptable manner.

Registry Number 7079

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 4, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

Registry Number 7097

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 19, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format and wording of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give two glasses of water to drink;

2. Correct the contradictory information pertaining to the flash point and product’s capability to sustain combustion.

Registry Number 7099

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 8, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

Registry Number 7100

Date of notice confirming acceptance: November 27, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the percent concentration of limonene in an acceptable manner;

2. Remove the inference that the ingredient known as an alkyl alkoxylate was a part of the claim for exemption.

Registry Number 7135

Date of notice confirming acceptance: December 19, 2008

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format and wording of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give two glasses of water to drink.

Registry Number 7200

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 15, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give two glasses of water;

2. Disclose that metal containers should be grounded during the transfer of large quantities of the controlled product;

3. Add oxides of nitrogen to the list of hazardous decomposition products;

4. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause fetotoxic effects and developmental effects in laboratory animals at maternally toxic dose levels.

Registry Number 7271

Date of notice confirming acceptance: January 8, 2009

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the case of the following claims, either the claimant did not supply the screening officer with a signed undertaking or the screening officer was not satisfied that the claimant had taken the measures set out in the undertaking in the manner and within the period specified in it. Pursuant to subsection 17.1(1) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, the screening officer ordered the claimant to comply with the requirements of the relevant legislation within 30 days from the expiry of the appeal period, except that the information in respect of which the claim for exemption was made does not have to be disclosed, and to provide a copy of the amended MSDS to the screening officer within 40 days of the expiry of the appeal period.

CLAIMS WHERE SCREENING OFFICER ORDERED THE CLAIMANT
TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

Pursuant to paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, the Chief Screening Officer of the Haz-ardous Materials Information Review Commission hereby gives notice of any information that the screening officer ordered to be disclosed on a material safety data sheet reviewed by the screening officer.

Registry Number 6431

Date of order: February 2, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for eye contact, disclose that flushing should continue for at least 60 minutes;

2. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for skin contact, disclose that flushing should continue for at least 60 minutes;

3. Disclose that eye protection equipment should be worn when working with this material.

Registry Number 6434

Date of order: January 6, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Correct the impression that naphthalene and benzene, 4-ethyl-1,2-dimethyl are regulated components of the controlled product.

Registry Number 6435

Date of order: January 28, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Remove the contradictory information pertaining to the asbestos content of the ingredient talc;

2. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has shown positive results in screening tests for mutagenicity;

3. Remove the inference that the ingredient known as a rheological additive was a part of the claim for exemption;

4. Disclose that eye protection equipment should be worn when working with this material.

Registry Number 6436

Date of order: January 28, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Remove the contradictory information pertaining to the asbestos content of the ingredient talc;

2. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has shown positive results in screening tests for mutagenicity;

3. Disclose that eye protection equipment should be worn when working with this material.

Registry Number 6446

Date of order: January 6, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Remove the inference that the ingredient known as organic salts was a part of the claim for exemption;

2. Disclose the Exposure Limit Value ACGIH TLV–TWA = 100 ppm for propan-1-ol;

3. Disclose that eye protection equipment should be worn when working with this material;

4. Disclose the LD₅₀ (dermal, rabbit) value of 5.04 mL/kg for propan-1-ol.

Registry Number 6447

Date of order: January 6, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

Registry Number 6448

Date of order: January 28, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose that acute ingestion of an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause adverse CNS effects in laboratory animals;

2. Disclose that the proprietary additive has been shown to cause dermal sensitization in laboratory animals;

3. Disclose that eye protection equipment should be worn when working with this material.

Registry Numbers 6451 and 6452

Date of orders: January 28, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the presence of diethylenetriamine in the controlled product, its CAS Registry Number 111-40-0 and its percent concentration;

2. Disclose that eye protection equipment should be worn when working with this material;

3. Registry Number 6452:

(a) Remove the contradictory information pertaining to the asbestos content of the ingredient talc;

(b) Remove the misleading statements that the product contains talc.

Registry Number 6455

Date of order: January 28, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause fetotoxic effects in laboratory animals at maternally toxic dose levels.

Registry Number 6460

Date of order: January 6, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose that eye protection equipment should be worn when working with this material.

Registry Number 6461

Date of order: January 6, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Add skin contact as a route of entry;

2. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for skin contact, disclose a statement to the effect that the skin should be washed with soap and water for at least 30 minutes;

3. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, disclose a statement to the effect that trained personnel should immediately administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation if the heart has stopped;

4. Disclose that eye protection equipment should be worn when working with this material;

5. If the WHMIS classifications are stated on the MSDS, disclose that the controlled product is also in class E.

Registry Number 6462

Date of order: January 6, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose that eye protection equipment should be worn when working with this material.

Registry Numbers 6463 to 6467, inclusive

Date of orders: January 6, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. If the WHMIS classifications are stated on the MSDS, disclose that the controlled product is also in class E;

2. Registry Number 6463: Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause skin and eye corrosion in laboratory animals;

3. Registry Number 6464: Add hydrogen chloride and oxides of nitrogen the list of hazardous decomposition products;

4. Registry Numbers 6463 and 6464: Disclose an LC₅₀ (4 hours, rat) value of 7.1 mg/L for methacrylic acid;

5. Registry Numbers 6463, 6464 and 6466:

(a) In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for skin contact, disclose a statement to the effect that the skin should be washed with soap and water for at least 30 minutes;

(b) Disclose that eye protection equipment should be worn when working with this material.

Registry Number 6480

Date of order: February 19, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Add oxides of nitrogen to the list of hazardous decomposition products.

Registry Number 6481

Date of order: February 19, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Add oxides of carbon to the list of hazardous decomposition products;

2. If the WHMIS classifications are stated on the MSDS, disclose that the controlled product is also in class E.

Registry Number 6528

Date of order: January 28, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the percent concentration of crystalline silica (impurity) in an acceptable manner;

2. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for eye contact, disclose a statement to the effect that any dry or wet product on the face should be quickly and gently blotted away and then the eyes should be flushed continuously with water for 30 minutes;

3. In addition to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for skin contact, disclose instructions to the effect that wet or moist product excess chemical should be quickly and gently blotted away;

4. Disclose the Exposure Limit Value ACGIH TLV–TWA = 0.025 mg/m³ for crystalline silica;

5. Remove the ACGIH TLV designation from the disclosed exposure limit value for nuisance dusts.

Registry Number 6532

Date of order: January 28, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the presence of an additional confidential hazardous ingredient in the controlled product, together with its percent concentration;

2. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for eye contact, disclose a statement to the effect that the eyes should be flushed continuously with lukewarm, gently flowing water for at least 20 minutes;

3. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give water to drink and add advice to the effect that trained personnel should immediately administer artificial respiration or cardiopulmonary resuscitation if breathing has stopped or the heart has stopped;

4. Remove the ACGIH TLV designation from the disclosed exposure limit value for nuisance dusts;

5. Disclose that dermal exposure to an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause developmental effects in laboratory animals at maternally toxic dose levels;

6. Disclose that chronic skin contact with an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause adverse kidney and liver effects in laboratory animals.

Registry Number 6636

Date of order: January 9, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information for skin and eye contact already disclosed on the MSDS, add a statement to the effect that medical attention be obtained immediately.

Registry Numbers 6669 and 6670

Date of orders: January 28, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

Registry Number 6731

Date of order: February 4, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the generic chemical identity of an additional confidential hazardous ingredient in the controlled product, disclose its concentration in an acceptable manner and disclose that the real chemical identity is included in the claim for exemption;

2. Disclose that ingredients in the controlled product have shown positive results in screening tests for mutagenicity.

Registry Number 6737

Date of order: January 28, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for eye contact, disclose a statement to the effect that any dry or wet product on the face should be quickly and gently blotted away and then the eyes should be flushed continuously with lukewarm, gently flowing water for 60 minutes;

2. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for skin contact, disclose a statement to the effect that the skin should be washed with water for at least 60 minutes. Further disclose instructions to the effect that for contact with wet or moist product, excess chemical should be quickly and gently blotted away and immediate medical attention obtained.

Registry Number 6751

Date of order: December 16, 2008

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Delete the statement that vinyl polymer is not WHMIS regulated;

2. Correct the impression that ethylbenzene and toluene are regulated components of the controlled product;

3. Add oxides of nitrogen to the list of hazardous combustion products;

4. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 5 448 mg/kg for dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate;

5. Correctly identify the ACGIH TLV–TWA and TLV–STEL values for the ingredient xylene.

Registry Numbers 6753 to 6756, inclusive

Date of orders: December 16, 2008

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Delete the statement that vinyl polymer is not WHMIS regulated;

2. Correct the impression that ethylbenzene and toluene are regulated components of the controlled product;

3. Add oxides of nitrogen to the list of hazardous combustion products;

4. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 5 448 mg/kg for dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate;

5. Correctly identify the ACGIH TLV–TWA and TLV–STEL values for the ingredient xylene;

6. Registry Numbers 6753 and 6756: Delete the statement that organic pigment is not WHMIS regulated.

Registry Numbers 6758 and 6759

Date of orders: December 16, 2008

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Delete the statement that vinyl polymer is not WHMIS regulated;

2. Correct the impression that ethylbenzene and toluene are regulated components of the controlled product;

3. Add oxides of nitrogen to the list of hazardous combustion products;

4. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 5 448 mg/kg for dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate;

5. Correctly identify the ACGIH TLV–TWA and TLV–STEL values for the ingredient xylene;

6. Registry Number 6759: Delete the statement that organic pigment is not WHMIS regulated.

Registry Numbers 6761 to 6763, inclusive

Date of orders: December 16, 2008

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format and content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Delete the statement that vinyl polymer is not WHMIS regulated;

2. Correct the impression that ethylbenzene and toluene are regulated components of the controlled product;

3. Add oxides of nitrogen to the list of hazardous combustion products;

4. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 5 448 mg/kg for dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate;

5. Correctly identify the ACGIH TLV–TWA and TLV–STEL values for the ingredient xylene;

6. Registry Numbers 6761 and 6763: Delete the statement that organic pigment is not WHMIS regulated.

Registry Number 6769

Date of order: February 13, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the presence of two additional hazardous ingredients in the controlled product, together with their CAS registry numbers;

2. Add oxides of nitrogen to the list of hazardous decomposition products.

Registry Number 6803

Date of order: February 19, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the Exposure Limit Value ACGIH TLV–TWA = 1 mg/m³ (respirable fraction) for aluminum;

2. Add hydrogen chloride to the list of hazardous decomposition products.

Registry Number 6861

Date of order: January 16, 2009

The claimant has been ordered to amend certain aspects of the format, content and wording of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been further ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, remove the statement to give one to two glasses of water to drink;

2. Remove the statement indicating that the calculated oral LD₅₀ value for the controlled product is >2 000 mg/kg and disclose instead a range value of 500–1 000 mg/kg;

3. Disclose a dermal LD₅₀ value for one of the confidential hazardous ingredients in an acceptable manner.

Registry Number 6973

Date of order: February 6, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the percent concentration of certain of the hazardous ingredients in an acceptable manner;

2. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause fetotoxicity in laboratory animals;

3. Clarify the hazard potential of the controlled product as regards skin contact.

Registry Number 6975

Date of order: February 19, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the generic chemical identity of two additional confidential hazardous ingredient in the controlled product, disclose their concentrations in an acceptable manner and disclose that the real chemical identities are included in the claim for exemption;

2. Disclose the percent concentrations of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane and decamethylpentasiloxane in an acceptable manner.

Registry Number 7128

Date of order: February 6, 2009

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant has been ordered to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the percent concentration of fatty polyamines in an acceptable manner;

2. Disclose that chemical resistant footwear be worn when handling the controlled product;

3. Disclose LD₅₀ values for two of the confidential hazardous ingredients in an acceptable manner;

4. Disclose that chronic ingestion of an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause central nervous system effects in laboratory animals;

5. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause fetotoxicity in laboratory animals;

6. Disclose that chronic ingestion of an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause adverse effects on the testes of laboratory animals;

7. If the WHMIS classifications are stated on the MSDS, disclose that the controlled product is also in class D2A.

Note: The following claims were cancelled after the issuance of the decisions and thus neither was a signed undertaking provided nor was an order issued. The screening officer has identified the following instances of non-compliance with the requirements of the relevant legislation.

Registry Number 7045

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose that acute dermal exposure to an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause necrosis to the liver in laboratory animals;

2. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 1 030 mg/kg for isophoronediamine;

3. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, female rat) value of 1 250 mg/kg for benzoic acid;

4. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause mutagenic effects in mammalian cells, in vitro;

5. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause teratogenic effects in laboratory animals.

Registry Number 7046

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose the pH of the controlled product;

2. Disclose the lower LD₅₀ (dermal, rabbit) value of 0.707 mL/kg for diethylenetriamine;

3. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has shown positive results in a screening test for mutagenicity.

Registry Number 7050

The claimant had been advised to amend certain aspects of the content of the MSDS.

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been further advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose that acute dermal exposure to an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause necrosis to the liver in laboratory animals;

2. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 1 030 mg/kg for isophoronediamine;

3. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, female rat) value of 1 250 mg/kg for benzoic acid;

4. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause mutagenic effects in mammalian cells, in vitro;

5. Disclose that an ingredient in the controlled product has been shown to cause eye corrosion in laboratory animals;

6. In relation to the period of time shown on the MSDS for flushing the eyes with water should eye contact occur, delete the current time frame and replace it with a time of 30 minutes;

7. Disclose the pH of the controlled product;

8. Disclose an LD₅₀ (oral, rat) value of 1 230 mg/kg for benzyl alcohol.

Registry Number 7251

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. Disclose an Exposure Limit Value for one of the confidential hazardous ingredients;

2. Disclose an LD₅₀ value for one of the confidential hazardous ingredients in an acceptable manner.

Registry Numbers 7253, 7257, 7261 and 7262

In the opinion of the screening officer, certain information should have been shown on the MSDS. The claimant had been advised to amend the MSDS as indicated below.

1. In relation to the first aid information shown on the MSDS for ingestion, delete the statement “give one cup (8 ounces or 240 mL) water or milk if available.”

Acknowledgement: Subsequent to the review of the MSDSs-of-Record respecting these particular claims, the claimant provided the Commission with copies of revised versions. These revised versions of the MSDSs were not, however, reviewed by the screening officer.

Pursuant to paragraph 18(1)(b) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, this notice includes certain information which, in the opinion of the screening officer, should have been shown on the relevant MSDS.

Pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Controlled Products Regulations, amended MSDSs must be available in both official languages.

Section 20 of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act affords the opportunity to a claimant or any affected party, within the meaning of subsection 2(2) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Regulations, to appeal a decision or order of a screening officer. It also affords the opportunity to an affected party to appeal an undertaking. To initiate the appeal process, a Statement of Appeal (Form 1) as prescribed by the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act Appeal Board Procedures Regulations must be completed and delivered within 45 days of the publication of this notice in the Canada Gazette, Part I, to the Chief Appeals Officer at the following address: Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, 427 Laurier Avenue W, 7th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1M3, 613-998-2363.

R. BOARDMAN
Chief Screening Officer

[13-1-o]

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW COMMISSION

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW ACT

Filing of a claim for exemption

Pursuant to paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, the Chief Screening Officer of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission hereby gives notice of the receipt of the claims for exemption listed below.

The above claims seek exemption from the disclosure of employer confidential information in respect of a controlled product which would otherwise be required to be disclosed by the provisions of the applicable provincial legislation relating to occupational health and safety.

The above claims seek exemption from the disclosure of supplier confidential business information in respect of a controlled product; such disclosure would otherwise be required under the provisions of the Hazardous Products Act.

Subsection 12(2) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act requires that this notice contain a statement offering every affected party the opportunity to make written representations to the screening officer with respect to the claim for exemption and the material safety data sheet to which it relates.

Under the provisions of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Regulations, “affected party,” for purposes of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, means, in respect of a controlled product that is the subject of a claim for exemption, a person who is not a competitor of the claimant and who uses, supplies or is otherwise involved in the use or supply of the controlled product at a work place, and includes

(a) a supplier of the controlled product;

(b) an employee at the work place;

(c) an employer at the work place;

(d) a safety and health professional for the work place;

(e) a safety and health representative or a member of a safety and health committee for the work place; and

(f) a person who is authorized in writing to represent

(i) a supplier referred to in paragraph (a) or an employer referred to in paragraph (c), or

(ii) an employee referred to in paragraph (b), except where that person is an official or a representative of a trade union that is not certified or recognized in respect of the work place.

Written representations respecting a claim for exemption cited in the present notice, or the material safety data sheet to which the claim relates, must cite the appropriate Registry Number, state the reasons and evidence upon which the representations are based and be delivered within 30 days of the date of the publication of this notice in the Canada Gazette, Part I, to the Screening Officer at the following address: Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, 427 Laurier Avenue W, 7th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1M3.

R. BOARDMAN
Chief Screening Officer

[13-1-o]

NAFTA SECRETARIAT

COMPLETION OF PANEL REVIEW

Certain softwood lumber products from Canada

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subrule 78(b) of the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, that the binational panel review of the final results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews made by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, respecting Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada is completed (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2005-1904-01).

On January 30, 2009, the binational panel granted the motion to dismiss this proceeding.

No Request for an Extraordinary Challenge Committee has been filed with the responsible Secretary. Therefore, pursuant to subrule 78(b) of the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, this Notice of Completion of Panel Review is effective on March 13, 2009, the 31st day following the date on which the responsible Secretary issued the Notice of Final Panel Action.

Explanatory note

Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement establishes a procedure for replacing domestic judicial review of determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by binational panels.

These panels are established, when a Request for Panel Review is received by the NAFTA Secretariat, to act in place of national courts to review final determinations expeditiously to determine whether they are in accordance with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico established the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews. These Rules were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on January 1, 1994.

Requests for information concerning the present notice, or concerning the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, should be addressed to the Canadian Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Canadian Section, 90 Sparks Street, Suite 705, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5B4, 613-992-9388.

ANNE MCCASKILL
Canadian Secretary

[13-1-o]

NAFTA SECRETARIAT

DECISION

Certain softwood lumber products from Canada

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to rule 70 of the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, that the panel established to review the final results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews made by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, respecting Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, issued its decision on January 30, 2009 (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2005-1904-01).

In the January 30, 2009, decision, the binational panel granted the Department of Commerce’s Motion to Dismiss the panel proceeding.

Copies of the complete decision may be obtained from Canadian Government Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S5, 613-941-5995 or 1-800-635-7943.

Explanatory note

Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement establishes a procedure for replacing domestic judicial review of determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by binational panels.

These panels are established, when a Request for Panel Review is received by the NAFTA Secretariat, to act in place of national courts to review final determinations expeditiously to determine whether they are in accordance with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico established the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews. These Rules were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on January 1, 1994.

Requests for information concerning the present notice, or concerning the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, should be addressed to the Canadian Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Canadian Section, 90 Sparks Street, Suite 705, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5B4, 613-992-9388.

ANNE MCCASKILL
Canadian Secretary

[13-1-o]

PATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD

PATENT ACT

Hearing

In the matter of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, as amended

And in the matter of Amgen Canada Inc. (the “Respondent”) and the medicine Neulasta

Take notice that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (the “Board”) will hold a public hearing in the Standard Life Centre, 18th Floor, 333 Laurier Avenue W, Ottawa, Ontario, commencing on September 28, 2009. A pre-hearing conference will also be held on June 3, 2009.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether, under sections 83 and 85 of the Patent Act, Amgen Canada Inc. is selling or has sold the medicine known as Neulasta in any market in Canada at a price that, in the Board’s opinion, is or was excessive and if so, what order, if any, should be made.

Neulasta is a new active substance (pegfilgrastim) indicated to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Persons wishing to intervene in this proceeding are required to apply to the Board for leave to intervene on or before April 13, 2009. Such persons should contact the Secretary of the Board for further information on the procedure.