Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 158, Number 13: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Personnel Licensing and Training)

March 30, 2024

Statutory authority
Aeronautics Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

The SJCSR has indicated that certain requirements in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) governing personnel qualifications, training, and licensing could be perceived as ambiguous, and that there is some inconsistent use of terminology throughout the CARs. The SJCSR has also identified a number of sub-delegation issues in Part IV of the CARs. If unaddressed, these concerns could lead to misinterpretation of the regulatory requirements and, as a result, unintended non-compliance with the CARs.

Ambiguous provisions

The SJCSR identified concerns with interpretation of the CARs when terms such as “the applicable requirements of the related standard” are used. It could be challenging for users to know which requirements of the standard are applicable.

Similarly, the SJCSR questioned the use of the words “for which the validity period has not expired” as there is a requirement to have completed one of the listed tests or checks within a designated time frame of 24 months, making the statement in quotations redundant.

The SJCSR also identified a provision where the term “and” was mistakenly used in place of the word “or” in the CARs. In this instance, the proposed Regulation would allow authorized pilots to conduct instrument proficiency checks for “commercial or private air operators”, as pilots cannot work for both a commercial and private operator at the same time.

Inconsistent use of terminology

The SJCSR identified multiple terms in the CARs that are used interchangeably, such as “pilot license” and “Canadian pilot license”; “holder of a second officer rating” and “holder of a pilot license endorsed with a second officer rating”; “holder of a flight instructor rating” and “holder of a pilot license endorsed with a flight instructor rating”; and “simulator” and “flight simulator”. The SJCSR noted that these inconsistencies could potentially cause confusion.

Sub-delegation issues

The SJCSR raised concerns regarding the issue of sub-delegated authorities of rulemaking through certain provisions of the CARs requiring operators to comply with manuals, programs, systems, or procedures that the operators developed themselves. The SJCSR suggested that such rulemaking was not consistent with the enabling authority in the Aeronautics Act, and as a result their view was that there may not be legal authority to take enforcement action against operators if the operators do not comply with processes they established themselves in manuals, programs, systems, and/or procedures.

Three instances of sub-delegation issues were identified in Part IV of the CARs:

• Section 406.35 requires that a flight training unit establish and comply with a maintenance control system. The SJCSR has raised concerns that there is a sub-delegation issue when flight training units must comply with the maintenance control system that they were responsible for establishing.
• Section 406.38(1)(b) requires that a flight training unit authorize the use of its maintenance control manual and comply with the policies and procedures contained therein. The SJCSR has raised concerns that there is a sub-delegation issue when flight training units must comply with policies and procedures contained in the maintenance control manual they have developed.
• Section 406.47(2) requires that a flight training unit distribute findings resulting from the maintenance control system quality assurance program to the appropriate manager for corrective action and follow-up in accordance with the policies and procedures specified in the maintenance control manual. The SJCSR has raised concerns that there is a sub-delegation issue when flight training units must take corrective action and follow up in accordance with the policies and procedures specified in documents that have been developed by the operators themselves.

All three instances refer to documents or systems developed by operators. The SJCSR’s view is that these provisions cannot be enforced in the same manner as regulations. To date, the SJCSR’s concerns related to these provisions have not materialized (i.e. no enforcement actions have been taken against operators with respect to these provisions). However, given the assessment by the SJCSR, the provisions should be amended to resolve their concerns.

Exemptions

An exemption is an authorization that permits a person to do something that is not in accordance with a regulation, order, or security measure. The Minister may issue an exemption if he is of the opinion that doing so is in the public interest and is not likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security. There are currently several global (i.e. available to anyone) exemptions in effect. TC is of the opinion that the permissions provided through those exemptions should be made permanent. By contrast, re-issuing exemptions upon their expiration is costly and time-consuming for TC.

For example, there are two exemptions that permit qualified experimental and production test pilots as well as engineering test pilots to act as pilot-in-command or co-pilot in an aircraft without holding the appropriate type rating for the aircraft. Without these exemptions, test pilots would not be able to fly aircraft either in the manufacturing/production process or for testing purposes, which would be a barrier to introducing a new aircraft to the market. These exemptions were issued as temporary measures until the CARs could be amended. The current exemptions are set to expire in 2024 and 2027.

There is also an exemption that permits participation in a Part VII training program in a level C or D simulator for holders of a Canadian Pilot Permit or Licence that have not acted as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aircraft within the five years preceding the flight as another means to meet the recency requirements set out in Part IV of the CARs. It is important that this exemption be upheld and regularized because it provides flexibility for pilots to gather necessary recency requirements. Taking into account the technological advancements in flight simulation since the introduction of the CARs in 1996, the realism, fidelity, and resolution of the current full flight simulators provides a standard that is equal to or better than meeting these requirements in a small aircraft with an instructor. This exemption is set to expire in 2026.

TC has monitored the impact of these exemptions and is satisfied that making these changes permanent would not compromise safety and security.

Ambiguous or missing definitions

TC identified some provisions that could be perceived as ambiguous and could lead to potential misinterpretations.

For example, in Part IV of the CARs, there is a section that allows family members of an aircraft owner to use that aircraft for training purposes but does not specify who qualifies as a “family member.” This could lead to confusion and makes it difficult to maintain consistency in the application of the CARs across the country.

The CARs are also missing a definition to outline what qualifies as “cross-country flight time” for training purposes. This makes it harder to ensure that pilot training is consistent across the country and that trainees are receiving the correct training. The absence of a definition could lead to inadequate training.

Validity periods

TC has determined that the validity periods for aviation document booklets that are currently established in the CARs should be modified. For operational level language proficiency, the validity period would be reduced from 10 to 5 years. Similarly, the expert level language proficiency would be increased from 5 years to 10 years. These changes would be consistent with current practice followed across the aviation industry, which is 5 years for operational level language proficiency and 10 years for expert level language proficiency. The CARs would be amended to match these current operating practices, which would not result in any incremental costs for industry stakeholders.

Amendments are required to simplify the regulatory provision pertaining to the validity of medical certificates and to align with current practices. Currently, the CARs state that the issuance or renewal of a certificate is calculated from the first day of the month following either the day on which the applicant signs the medical declaration or on the day on which the medical examination is conducted. The CARs also state that, if the medical examination is conducted within 90 days before the end of the validity period, the calculation of the validity starts on the day on which the preceding validity period ends. The amendment would clarify that the validity is calculated from the first day of the month following the day on which the medical examination is conducted.

Administrative amendments

A provision in Part IV of the CARs states that the person responsible for the maintenance control system shall ensure that records relating to the findings resulting from the quality assurance program are distributed to the appropriate manager for corrective action and follow-up. This provision is not designated as enforceable via administrative monetary penalties (AMPs), which means that an administrative monetary penalty cannot be issued in the case of non-compliance with the requirement. While there is no specific compliance issue with this provision, it is a critical safety requirement to ensure that the issues or deficiencies identified through the quality assurance program are distributed to the appropriate managers and that corrective actions are implemented. Therefore, there is a need to designate this requirement as enforceable via AMPs to create a more efficient enforcement mechanism to incentivize continued compliance.

Recreational pilot permits allow people to become pilots in as little as 25 hours of training. While the CARs specifically allow recreational pilots who obtain the permit to fly single-engined aircraft, they do not explicitly prohibit recreational pilots from flying multi-engined aircraft. While no recreational pilots are flying multi-engined aircraft as those planes are more complex and beyond their abilities, explicitly prohibiting this action would remove any potential ambiguity.

The requirements for the retention of pilot training records by the Minister are outdated and burdensome for TC regional offices. Currently, TC regional offices must store hard copies of each pilot training record that is sent to them by instructors/flight training units. Sending electronic copies would eliminate the cost of sending the records by mail and eliminate the need for physical space to store paper copies of records. Other documents, such as applications and copies of flight tests, are already being sent electronically to TC. Sending pilot training records electronically would therefore align with existing practices. Given that the same systems will be used for the pilot training records, TC does not anticipate any integrity or fraud risks associated with switching to electronic records.

Flight schools sometimes establish a satellite base with personnel, aircraft, and facilities for the operation of a flight training service on a temporary basis. Under the former Air Regulations, made pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, authority to conduct flight training operations at a satellite base was limited to two sessions of 90 days, with a possibility to seek a 30-day extension for each session with authorization from TC, resulting in the possibility to operate a satellite base for a total of 240 days in a calendar year. When the CARs were created in 1996 to replace the Air Regulations, the wording of the provision was changed to specify that a satellite base could be operated “on a temporary basis” but did not specify a maximum number of days. While no specific number of days was included, industry and inspectors continued to follow what was required under the former Air Regulations. There is a need to explicitly quantify what is meant by “temporary basis” to remove any potential ambiguity and to ensure consistent interpretation/application of the CARs across the country.

TC noted a typographical error in the English version of a provision in the Instructor Qualifications and Training section of Part VI where the word “an” was incorrectly used in place of “a.”

Addressing a TSB recommendation

After an accident in 2013, the TSB made a recommendation in 2016 to shorten recency requirements for instrument flight rules.

The TSB found that, under the CARs, instrument-rated pilots may go up to 12 months following their instrument flight test before they are required to conduct any actual or simulated instrument flying. After 12 months, the CARs require pilots to have completed 6 hours of instrument flying, including 6 instrument approaches during the previous 6 months to maintain their instrument qualification. The TSB’s view was that many of these instrument-rated pilots do not routinely conduct instrument flight training or operations to maintain a reasonable degree of instrument flying proficiency. As a result, pilots who have had little to no instrument flying experience for 12 months may legally be called upon to carry out, and may accept, a challenging instrument flight without recent practice in the skills essential to the safe conduct of an instrument flight.

TSB concluded that IFR ratings are a perishable skill, and as a result recency requirements for IFR flight should be shortened from 12 to 6 months to ensure pilot skills are maintained to an acceptable level for this type of operation.

In 2019, TC released an advisory circular to outline the conduct of instrument proficiency checks and describe how instrument-rated pilots can demonstrate compliance with recency requirements of subsection 401.05(3) of the CARs. Given that the recency requirement for IFR flights represents a “rule of conduct,” it is outlined in the CARs as opposed to in advisory material, hence the need to amend the CARs to change the recency requirement.

Background

The CARs outline the requirements that govern aviation in Canada. The CARs touch on all aspects of aviation, including requirements pertaining to personnel qualifications, training, and licensing.

Linked to the Transportation Sector Regulatory Review Roadmap, and as part of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review initiative, outstanding and emerging shortcomings were identified concerning the regulatory requirements related to personnel qualifications, training, and licensing. As a first step towards bringing the CARs up to date with continuous changes in the aviation industry, the proposed Regulations constitute one of many planned initiatives to address non-controversial irritants within the aviation sector from a list of over 1 900 irritants identified over the years through internal and external consultations. The proposed Regulations would address longstanding issues governing requirements related to personnel qualifications, training, and licensing. As part of the review, TC conducted a validation exercise to ensure the issues identified over the years were still valid; collaborated with internal and external experts to develop appropriate solutions; and engaged in broad consultations with industry to ensure that there would not be any unintended impacts.

The proposed Regulations would address three longstanding exemptions from the CARs. An exemption is an authorization that permits a person to do something that is not in accordance with a regulation, order, or security measure. The Minister may issue an exemption if, in his opinion, doing so is in the public interest and is not likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security. In granting the exemption, the Minister may include any conditions that are necessary for the authorized activity to meet the public interest, safety, and security requirements. While some exemptions are applied nationally — global exemptions — others are applied to a single person. Typically, as required by TC policy, exemptions have an expiry date which can be defined as a specific date or a date on which a regulatory change that captures the purpose of the exemption is made. However, the Minister may at any time, in writing, cancel an exemption where, in his opinion, the exemption is no longer in the public interest or is likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security.

TC granted (and successively renewed) three global exemptions from the requirements of the CARs following a thorough assessment that determined that these exemptions are in the public interest and are not likely to adversely affect aviation safety. After monitoring and evaluating the ongoing safety and effectiveness of these exemptions, TC has determined that the permissions should be permanently codified in the CARs.

Some irritants and concerns that have informed this regulatory proposal were raised by the SJCSR. The SJCSR’s mandate is to examine regulations made by the Government of Canada for flaws in legality and execution. The SJCSR’s role is to review regulations against criteria that range from questions of validity and legal effect to matters of drafting and clarity.

One of the concerns raised by the SJCSR in relation to the CARs is the sub-delegation of rule-making through the requirements related to compliance with manuals, programs, systems, or procedures that have been developed by operators themselves. The SJCSR has suggested that such rule making was not consistent with the enabling authority stated in the Aeronautics Act. As a result, the SJCSR’s view is that TC does not have the authority to enforce an operator’s compliance with its own manuals, programs, systems, or procedures.

The proposed Regulations include an amendment to create a designated provision. When a provision has been designated, it can be enforced via the application of AMPs. AMPs are financial penalties imposed by a regulator, rather than a court, that can be levied against an individual or a business that fails to comply with a legislative requirement.

The proposed Regulations also include an amendment that was driven by a TSB recommendation. The TSB is an independent agency that advances transportation safety by investigating occurrences in the air, marine, pipeline and rail modes of transportation.

In 2013, a helicopter accident occurred near the Moosonee Airport in Ontario. The TSB investigation found that two pilots and two paramedics departed for a night flight under visual flight rules in conditions that required the use of instrument flying skills because the ambient lighting needed to maintain visual reference to the surface was lacking. Although both pilots had met the instrument flight currency requirements in the CARs, once the aircraft passed the end of the runway lights, necessitating transition to instrument flight, an excessive bank angle and rate of descent developed, which were not recognized by the crew at an altitude that permitted recovery. The helicopter crashed into trees and fell to the ground where it was destroyed. No one on board survived the crash. The TSB investigation concluded that both pilots lacked instrument flying proficiency and, in 2016, it recommended that TC refine instrument currency requirements to ensure that pilots maintain an acceptable proficiency when flying with instruments.

TSB plays a vital role by providing recommendations to enhance aviation safety and to develop lessons learned from previous accidents. Implementing their recommendations helps eliminate or reduce perceived safety deficiencies that may pose risks to the transportation system.

Objective

The objective of the proposed Regulations is to modernize the CARs by updating provisions that could be perceived as ambiguous; clarifying existing requirements; and addressing the inconsistent use of certain terminology. These amendments are expected to enhance aviation safety and reduce the administrative burden for industry and for TC.

Description

The following is a list of amendments that are being proposed to the CARs.

Ambiguous provisions

• Amend paragraph 401.05(3)(c) to remove the redundant reference to “the applicable requirements of subsection 421.05(1) of Standard 421 – Flight Crew Permits, Licences and Ratings” as all of the standard requirements are already applicable.
• Amend paragraph 401.05(3)(d) to remove the wording “for which the validity period has not expired” because the individual pilot’s instrument rating is valid for 24 months if recency requirements are met. The pilot’s personal instrument rating is not tied to the expiration of a pilot proficiency check or pilot competency check for an air operator or private operator registration document holder; they can still conduct an IFR flight in their own aircraft or in a rented aircraft.
• Amend both the English and French versions of subparagraph 401.05(3)(d)(iii) to replace the word “and” with the word “or” to clarify that a foreign check pilot is authorized to conduct instrument proficiency checks for commercial or private air operators of that state.

Inconsistent terminology

• Replace all instances of “Canadian pilot licence” with “pilot licence” as the qualifier of licences being “Canadian” is outlined in subsection 400.01(2) of the CARs.
• Replace all instances of “simulator” and “flight simulator” with “full-flight simulator”.
• Replace all instances of “holder of a second officer rating” with “holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a second officer rating”.
• Replace all instances of “holder of a flight instructor rating” with “holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating”.

Sub-delegation issues

• Amend section 406.35 and subsection 406.38(1) by replacing “comply with” with “and maintain” to eliminate the requirement for an operator to comply with documents or systems they created. As a practical matter, this would mean that TC would not be able to issue AMPs if an operator did not comply with its own documents or systems. However, operators would be required to maintain the documents and systems they create.
• Amend subsection 406.47(2) by removing “in accordance with the policies and procedures specified in the maintenance control manual (MCM)” to eliminate the requirement for an operator to comply with the document (MCM) they created.

Exemptions

• Amend paragraphs 401.03(1)(a) and 401.03(1)(d) to codify a recurring exemption (NCR 095-2016) permitting qualified experimental and production test pilots to act as pilot-in-command or co-pilot in an aircraft without holding the appropriate type rating for the aircraft, allowing them to fly a plane for test purposes even though they do not have the proper rating.
• Amend paragraph 401.03(1)(a) to codify a recurring exemption (NCR 004-2019) permitting engineering test pilots to exercise the privileges of acting as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of any aircraft in the aircraft category endorsed on the pilot’s licence, without having a rating for the aircraft that is being operated for the purpose of flight testing the aircraft for TC, allowing them to fly a plane for test purposes even though they do not have the proper rating.
• Amend subsection 401.05(1) to codify a recurring exemption (NCR 047-2021) that allows participation in a Part VII training program in a Level C or D simulator to meet the 12-month requirements to exercise privileges of a licence or permit. This would give pilots an additional way to meet their training requirements.

Ambiguous or missing definitions

• Amend subparagraph 406.03(2)(b)(i) to clarify that a “family member” means a parent, child, sibling, or spouse.
• Amend section 400.01 of the CARs to include a definition that quantifies “cross-country flight time” as the flight time recorded when a flight follows standard navigation procedures along a pre-planned route to a destination that is at least 25 nautical miles from the point of departure.

Validity periods

• Amend paragraphs 402.08(3)(a) and 401.12(4)(b) to align the validity periods of operational and expert levels language proficiency of air traffic controllers’ licences with those of flight crews permits and licences as outlined in subsection 401.12(4). The proposed Regulations would revise the validity period to 10 years for expert level and 5 years for operational level.
• Amend subsections 404.04(7) and 404.04(8) of the CARs to establish that the validity of medical certificates would only be calculated from the first day of the month following the day on which the medical examination for the renewal of the certificate is conducted.

Administrative requirements/amendments

• Amend Schedule II in Part I of the CARs to designate subsection 406.47(2), which would make the provision enforceable via AMPs for non-compliance. The maximum AMP would be $5,000 for an individual and $25,000 for a corporation. These amounts align with similar penalties related to maintenance control system requirements.
• Amend section 401.38 to specify that a recreational pilot permit cannot be endorsed with a multi-engine class rating. This amendment would expressly prevent less experienced pilots from flying multi-engined aircraft.
• Amend subsection 405.33(3) to allow flight training units to send an electronic version of pilot training records to the Minister and allow trainees to keep the hard copies of their records.
• Amend subparagraph 406.12(g)(i) to allow flight training units to operate a satellite base for up to 240 days within a 12-month period.
• Amend, in the English version, paragraph 604.144(1)(b) to replace “an” with “a” to correct a typographical error.

Addressing a TSB recommendation

• Amend subsection 401.05(3.1) of the CARs to
  • (i) Shorten the recency period for instrument ratings privileges from 12 months to 6 months; and
  • (ii) Clarify that six instrument approaches to minima according to the approved instrument approach procedures can be completed in an aircraft in actual or simulated meteorological conditions, an aircraft in actual or simulated meteorological conditions while acting as a flight instructor, a Level B, C, or D full-flight simulator or a flight training device.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Between February and April 2020, a public consultation via TC’s “Let’s Talk Transportation” platform was conducted to gather stakeholder irritants related to Parts IV and VII of the CARs (Personnel Training, Qualifications, and Licensing). The question posed was the following: “What specific irritants do you have with personnel training, qualifications, and licensing (as related to Parts IV and VII) in the Canadian Aviation Regulations?” Seven suggestions were received from stakeholders during the consultation period. Four of those suggestions were deemed out of scope as they related to Part VII of the CARs (Commercial Air Services). The other three suggestions have been reviewed but will require further policy assessment before amendments could be considered.

In June 2020, a multidisciplinary task team comprised of internal and external subject matter experts was convened to review and discuss the proposed solutions to the various irritants related to Part IV of the CARs. The purpose of the task team was to have early engagement with a limited number of stakeholders and identify any potential unintended consequences of the proposed changes before undertaking a broader consultation through a notice of proposed amendment (NPA).

The task team included representatives from TC headquarters and regions as well as industry members, including many airline associations, flight schools, and commercial aviation representatives. Three meetings, chaired and facilitated by TC, were held in June 2020 to discuss 68 irritants associated with Part IV of the CARs. The task team reviewed all the issues that were raised over the years, including those raised by the SJCSR, and assessed the potential impact of the proposed amendments. All members of the task team agreed with the proposed changes.

On February 10, 2022, a broader consultation with industry took place through the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) process. An NPA was issued and stakeholders were given 30 days to provide comments on the proposed changes. Feedback from this consultation demonstrated broad support for the proposed Regulations.

One stakeholder indicated that the terms “flight test” and “test flight” are often interchanged and that definitions should be included in the CARs. It has been determined that such definitions would have significant impacts on many other publications and could create more confusion; therefore, TC is not moving forward with this suggestion. Another stakeholder suggested that TC clarify the requirements outlined in standards 425.33, Flight Training, and 421.71(3)(b), Flight Crew Permits, Licences and Ratings, to ensure that flight instructor candidates pass each flight test assessment to upgrade to a higher flight instructor class as opposed to simply doing the assessment. TC agreed with the proposed suggestion and will amend the relevant standards. TC aims to have the standards updated by the time that the proposed Regulations come into force. Stakeholders will be consulted and notified about amendments to the standards through the CARAC notification system.

Two stakeholders made comments regarding the definition of “cross-country flight time”. Firstly, stakeholders questioned the distance of 25 nautical miles in the definition. TC explained that it determined the distance of 25 nautical miles as a safety distance and, beyond that point, a flight plan or flight itinerary to be filed with air traffic services or a responsible person is needed to maintain an acceptable level of safety. Secondly, one stakeholder expressed an interest in adding the conduct of a diversion (i.e. diverting from a pre-planned route) in the definition of “cross-country flight time”. Although it is recognized that diversions are navigation procedures and are included in other parts of the pilot training, TC chose not to include that aspect of training towards the gathering of cross-country flight experience requirements because cross-country flying is a practice of tracking pre-planned routes, not diverting from them. Lastly, a stakeholder suggested that TC remove the requirements that a cross-country flight be a “pre-planned” route and that the distance be measured from the point of departure. Given that the purpose of cross-country exercises is to train on longer-distance flights and acquire knowledge on the necessary preparation for such flights (i.e. pre-planning a cross-country route on a map), TC determined that the word “pre-planned” is a key aspect of cross-country training and, therefore, needs to be included in the definition. In addition, if the reference to point of departure were removed from the definition, it could cause ambiguity and unnecessary confusion about the measuring of flight distance.

One stakeholder suggested that the allowable time period for a temporary satellite base be extended to up to 12 months (as opposed to 240 days) with a condition that the same location cannot be used 2 years in a row. TC considered the suggestion but, ultimately, determined that such a scheme could penalize operators who use satellite bases on a seasonal basis, e.g. during the summer period, each year. Therefore, TC concluded that 240 days per year would be more practical and appropriate for most flight schools. Any flight school that wishes to establish a longer-term training base at a different location would still have the option under the CARs to open it as a sub-base.

Regarding the proposed change to the recency period for instrument flight rule operations, TC does not anticipate any significant impacts given that commercial pilots already exceed the minimum requirement. TC consulted with industry experts on this proposed change through the 2020 task team meeting and the 2022 notice of proposed regulatory amendments, and no comments were received. In addition, TC reached out to a pilot association in 2023 to assist in determining the potential impact on private pilots, but no response was received.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether the proposed Regulations are likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. The assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposed Regulations in relation to modern treaties in effect. After examination, no implications or impacts on modern treaties were identified.

Instrument choice

Regulatory amendments are required to address the SJCSR’s concerns and ensure that the CARs are clear, consistent, and accurate. Given that most proposed regulations are intended to facilitate the interpretation of existing regulatory requirements, codify existing exemptions, eliminate subdelegation issues, and address a TSB recommendation, amending the CARs was deemed to be the most effective way of resolving the identified issues. Furthermore, given that the issues raised by the SJCSR are technical and administrative issues affecting existing requirements in the CARs, they must be dealt with through regulatory amendments. No non-regulatory options were considered.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was conducted on the proposed Regulations requiring instrument-rated pilots to conduct actual or simulated instrument flying in order to maintain their instrument qualification. The proposed Regulations would require instrument-rated pilots to complete six hours of instrument flying and six instrument approaches during the six months prior to an IFR flight, which would represent an incremental requirement in the first six months of the two-year validity period. The CBA also looks at the implementation of a system to send electronic flight records to TC for flights schools, eliminating the need to apply for satellite base extensions, as well as the codification of three global exemptions into the proposed Regulations that would otherwise be reissued by TC every five years.

The benefits associated with the proposed Regulations are estimated to be $1.2 million. These are the result of the modernization of the delivery of flight records, labour cost savings from the reduction in satellite base applications/renewals, as well as the codification of three global exemptions into the proposed Regulations. The costs are expected to be about $0.7 million at a 7% discount rate in 2022 dollars. Consequently, the net present benefit of the proposed Regulations would be $0.5 million.

In addition, TC expects non-monetized benefits associated with the shortening of recency requirements for IFR flights as well as TC storage and office space gains as the result of no longer requiring the storage of physical training records. TC also expects non-monetized costs associated with IFR-rated private pilots who may choose not to keep their recency requirements current and therefore would limit their future operations.

Analytical framework

The costs and benefits for the proposed Regulations have been assessed in accordance with the TBS Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis by comparing the baseline against the regulatory scenario. These impacts are analyzed over a 10-year analytical time frame beginning in the anticipated year (2024) of final publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, and ending in 2033. Values provided throughout the “Benefits and costs” section, unless otherwise noted, are in 2022 dollars and expressed in present value using a 2024 base year and a 7% discount rate.

Affected stakeholders

The proposed Regulations would introduce requirements for private pilots to increase their IFR flight activity in order to carry and maintain their IFR rating. Therefore, private pilots who do not meet the recency requirements stipulated in the proposed Regulations would be affected. It is estimated, based on TC subject matter expertise, that roughly 5% of private pilots holding IFR ratings would need to increase their level of activity to maintain their rating under the proposed Regulations. The estimates were presented to pilot associations in Canada for their input; no objections were raised. Furthermore, it is assumed that an additional 5% of the pilots would not keep their recency requirements current and would subsequently be unable to exercise those privileges until they have received the necessary training to meet the six take-offs and six hours in the last six months requirement.

The main beneficiaries of the proposed Regulations would be flights schools, private pilots along with their passengers as the result of their improved safety and increased preparedness, and the Government of Canada. The modernization of the delivery of flight records through electronic means would allow flight schools to avoid postage costs associated with the current practice of mailing paper records to TC. In addition, the proposed Regulations pertaining to satellite base extensions would reduce the number of applications/renewals required to be submitted by flight schools to extend satellite base operations, resulting in labour cost savings. Furthermore, the codification of exemptions in the proposed Regulations would also benefit those covered under the codified exemptions from certainty about their exemption status. The exemptions would also reduce the strain on government resources from reissuing exemptions, yielding a cost savings to government.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

In the baseline scenario, pilots carrying an IFR rating would continue to follow the existing recency requirements of the 24-month validity period. In the first 12 months, there would be no recency requirements when flying IFR; however, beginning in the 7th month, pilots would need to accumulate enough recency experience to maintain their rating by the 13th month. During the 13th to 24th months, pilots would have a requirement to complete six take-offs and 6 hours of instrument flying in the previous 6 months (a rolling timeline for the 13th to 24th month time frame). The validity period resets after 24 months when pilots take another flight test for their IFR rating and begin a new 24-month validity period. Based in part on the TSB recommendation, TC believes that the existing recency requirements need to be strengthened for safety and hence the need for the proposed amendments. Therefore, in the regulatory scenario, while the 24-month validity period would remain unchanged, the recency requirements would begin in the 7th month instead of the 13th. For this reason, the proposed amendments would have an impact on some pilots in the first 6 months of the validity period, as they accumulate recency experience in the lead up to that 7th month.

As the result of the proposed amendments and the private pilots needing to maintain recency experience, the regulatory scenario would include incremental instrument training costs for some pilots to maintain their IFR rating and the opportunity cost associated with the allocation of time to these activities.

From the benefit perspective, the proposed amendments would facilitate more efficient operations leading to industry cost savings in the form of avoided satellite base applications and renewal costs, as well as avoided mailing costs with respect to flight records.

In the baseline scenario, satellite bases would continue to follow the convention established in the old Air Regulations whereby an initial request for 90 days is submitted with subsequent extension requiring authorization from TC. In the regulatory scenario, flight schools would be allowed to operate the full 240 days without the need to apply for incremental approvals for extension from TC, thus eliminating the labour costs associated with the application/renewal of satellite base extensions. With respect to the avoided mailing costs, the proposed amendments would allow the submission of documents via email, which would lead to postage savings.

Furthermore, in comparison to the baseline scenario, the regulatory scenario would include government cost savings in the form of avoided satellite base application processing costs due to the decrease in the annual number of applications as the result of increased in flight schools’ satellite base operation cycle without the need for further TC approvals. Likewise, the codification of the global exemptions as the result of the proposed Regulations, which would remove the current baseline practice of reissuing every five years, would lead to additional governmental savings. These cost and benefits are further explored in the analysis below.

Costs

The total costs associated with the proposed Regulations are estimated to be $0.7 million over the 10-year analytical time frame. This is broken down into the costs of additional flying hours required for pilots to carry and maintain an IFR rating and the opportunity costs associated to forgo leisure time for additional flying hours.

Private pilot costs — Additional flying hours for pilots carrying an IFR rating

The proposed Regulations would require that pilots have six landings with minima and six hours of flying time in IFR conditions within the last six months prior to an IFR flight beginning in the seventh month of their validity period. It is anticipated that this would result in some private pilots needing to increase their IFR flights in the first six months of the validity period to maintain their rating. The proposed Regulations are expected to result in estimated incremental costs of $0.6 million over the analytical time frame at a 7% discount rate in 2022 dollars.

Since May 1, 2015, instrument ratings have been non-expiring qualifications, but they require an IFR flight test or instrument proficiency check to be completed within 24 months preceding an IFR flight. As a result of this change, the numbers of pilots actively carrying these ratings and maintaining their recency are no longer tracked. This analysis therefore draws on historical data from 1998 to 2015 to forecast private pilots carrying an IFR rating. Over the analytical time frame, it is estimated that the number of private pilots carrying an IFR rating would slightly increase.^{footnote 1} The annual estimates are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Estimated number of private pilots holding IFR rating over time

Year	2024	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032	2033
Estimated number of private pilots holding an IFR rating	3 125	3 158	3 191	3 224	3 257	3 291	3 324	3 357	3 390	3 423

Based on TC subject matter expertise, it is assumed that pilots who are maintaining IFR ratings using a pilot proficiency check (PPC), a form of maintenance only available to commercial or airline pilots in place of a flight test, would consistently be meeting the proposed recency requirements and would not be subject to incremental costs. These pilots are flying regularly and therefore the additional flying hours requirement for maintaining an IFR rating would still be met or exceeded. When compared to the baseline requirements, the private pilots who are estimated to require additional IFR activity (five percent as described above in the “Affected stakeholders” section) would need a maximum of six hours and six take-offs in the first six months of the validity period to fulfill the regulatory requirements. As there is no data available to more accurately reflect baseline activity in those six months by these private pilots, the analysis uses the maximum incremental activity to ensure that costs are not understated. To summarize, it is assumed that the private pilots in scope would bear costs associated with the full six hours and six take-offs and that this cost would be borne in the first six months of their validity period.

Pilots would be able to achieve the recency requirements in a few different ways. The most likely and most cost-effective way would be using a flight simulator with simulated IFR conditions. A scan of rates for capable flight simulators across Canada resulted in a low price of $85 per hour, a high price of $198 per hour, and an average price of $170 per hour.

Based on that average price and the previously outlined assumptions, it is estimated that the proposed Regulations would result in incremental costs of $0.6 million over the 10-year analytical time frame. This would work out to be roughly $3,646 per impacted pilot over the same time frame.^{footnote 2}

Private pilot costs — Instrument training opportunity costs

Given the additional flying hours required for pilots to maintain their IFR rating, this cost constitutes an opportunity cost due to the trade off between additional flying hours and leisure time for private pilots. Verbooy et al. (2018) estimated that a person would be willing to accept $27.64 to forgo leisure time for an hour of work.^{footnote 3} It is therefore expected that the proposed Regulations would result in an opportunity cost to private pilots of $0.1 million over the 10-year analytical time frame.

Non-monetized costs

Private pilot costs — Forgoing opportunity to fly in IFR conditions

In addition to the monetized costs mentioned above, it is expected that approximately 5% of affected private pilots would not keep their recency requirements current. This is estimated to be 156 individuals at the onset of the proposed Regulations, increasing to 171 individuals by 2033. Based on consultations with Transport Canada subject matter experts, for the most part, private pilots fly in good weather conditions that do not require IFR proficiency. Nonetheless, it is recognized that the proposed amendment to the recency requirement would limit available flying options for some private pilots.

Benefits

The proposed Regulations are expected to result in monetized benefits due to the cost savings resulting from the modernization of the delivery of flight training records through electronic means and labour costs savings resulting from satellite base extensions. In addition, benefits would be gained through the codification of three global exemptions. The monetized present value benefits of the proposed Regulations are estimated to be $1.2 million^{footnote 4} over the 10-year period.

Moreover, the proposed Regulations are expected to yield non-monetized safety benefits due to the shortening of recency requirements for IFR flights, which would help ensure that adequate pilot skills are maintained for the safe conduct of an instrument flight.

Industry (flight training schools)

Benefits to industry (flight training schools) are expected to be $1.0 million over the analytical time frame. This is broken down into the savings resulting from the introduction of electronic records and the avoided labour costs associated with satellite base extensions. These benefits are examined in greater detail below.

Industry cost savings — Avoided mailing costs of flight training records

The proposed Regulations would allow flight training schools to send electronic records to TC via email instead of the current practice of requiring the paper records to be mailed to TC.^{footnote 5} It is assumed that similar minor work is required for the preparation of the mail and email; however, the postage cost would be considered an incremental cost savings for flight schools.

It is estimated that roughly 5 100 records are mailed to TC on an annual basis. Considering these records are approximately 25 to 50 pages each depending on the amount of training a pilot completes, each set of records mailed to TC would cost flight schools roughly $3.19 based on Canada Post rates. It is therefore estimated that flight schools would save an undiscounted $16,269 per year. The total present value over the 10-year analytical time frame would be $0.1 million.

There would not be any anticipated quantifiable impact for TC associated with this change.

Industry cost savings — Avoided satellite base extension labour costs

Under the proposed Regulations, flight schools would be allowed to extend the operation of satellite bases without prior authorization from TC. The CBA assumes that the industry cost savings will come from the incremental difference between the number of the applications and renewals in the baseline and the regulatory scenarios. In the baseline, satellite bases can apply for a renewal (additional 30-day permit) after the initial application (90-day permit), followed by a new application (90-day permit), which can be renewed one more time (30-day permit) for a maximum allowed operational cycle of 240 days. It is estimated by TC that satellite bases on average operate for approximately 180 days in a year. This places the baseline operational cycle within a band of 121 to 210 days, meaning that after the initial application, satellite bases will apply on average for one renewal (30-day permit) and one new application (90-day permit). In the central scenario, as showcased above, the elimination of one application and one extension is considered as the industry labour cost savings.^{footnote 6}

As of June 2023, there are 20 flight schools with one satellite base and 4 flight schools with two satellite bases. Based on TC subject matter expertise, it takes approximately 85 hours to complete an application to extend the operation of a satellite base. Given that the proposed Regulations would reduce the number of yearly applications for each satellite base by one, it is expected that the proposed Regulations would save flight schools $0.7 million in discounted satellite base application costs.

Similarly, it takes approximately 25 hours for the renewal of a satellite base extension. Given that the proposed Regulations would reduce the number of renewals for each satellite base by one, it is expected that the proposed Regulations would save flight schools $0.2 million in discounted satellite base renewal costs.

In all, it is expected that the proposed Regulations would save flight schools $0.9 million in discounted avoided satellite base extension labour costs over the analytical period, at an industry hourly wage rate of $39.47 including overhead.^{footnote 7}

Government of Canada

Benefits to the government are expected to total $0.2 million over the analytical time frame. This is broken down into the savings resulting from the codification of the three global exemptions that would otherwise be reissued by TC every five years, and the avoided labour costs associated with satellite base extensions. These benefits are examined in greater detail below.

Government cost savings — Avoided exemption reissuing savings

The proposed Regulations would codify three global exemptions that would otherwise continue to be reissued by TC every five years. By codifying these exemptions into the proposed Regulations, the effort required by TC to reissue them would be avoided, resulting in cost savings for the government of $15,392.

Based on the time required by various employees within TC to reissue the exemptions, it is estimated that costs of $3,341 are incurred for each exemption. The estimated breakdown of job classifications and time required for each reissuance is provided in Table 2. Based on the latest date of reissuing of each of the three exemptions, the year in which the exemptions would be reissued is provided in Table 3.

Table 2: Government employee position and time required per exemption issued

Government position	Hours required per exemption	Estimated hourly wage table b2 note a (2022$)
Inspector	22	74
Program manager	5	81
Program chief	3	90
Administrative assistant	3	43
Senior regulatory affairs analyst	10	81
Regulatory chief	1	90
Table b2 note(s) Table b2 note a Including overhead cost (25%). Return to table b2 note a referrer

Table 3: Expected number of exemptions reissued over time

Exemption No.	2024	2025	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032	2033
NCR 004-2019	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
NCR-011-2022	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0
NCR 047-2021	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0

Government cost savings — Avoided satellite base extension labour costs

Based on TC subject matter expertise, it would take a government program administrator approximately 15 hours to review an application to extend the operation of a satellite base. Given that the proposed Regulations would reduce the yearly number of applications for each satellite base by one, it is expected that the proposed Regulations would save the government $0.2 million in discounted satellite base extension costs over the analytical period, at an hourly wage rate (including overhead) of $61.

It is important to note that there are no administrative costs pertaining to satellite base renewals for the government.

Non-monetized benefits

In addition to the monetized benefits, the proposed Regulations concerning the recency requirements for IFR flights are expected to provide non-monetized benefits in the form of enhanced safety. It is expected that, with additional training as required by the proposed Regulations, a higher level of pilot experience is gained. Therefore, pilots would be further prepared to tackle any unforeseen conditions that may arise during the operation of an aircraft.

Furthermore, under the proposed Regulations, TC would no longer need to store training records physically, resulting in storage space gains and optimization of available space at TC offices.

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of years: 10 (2024–2033)
• Base year for costing: 2022
• Present value base year: 2024
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 4: Monetized costs

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	Base year (2024)	Average of intervening years (2025–2032)	Final year (2033)	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Private pilots	Additional flying hours for pilots carrying IFR rating	$79,698	$62,094	$47,473	$623,921	$88,832
	Instrument training opportunity costs	$12,956	$10,094	$7,717	$101,424	$14,441
All stakeholders	Total costs table b4 note a	$92,654	$72,188	$55,190	$725,345	$103,273
Table b4 note(s) Table b4 note a Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding. Return to table b4 note a referrer

Table 5: Monetized benefits

Impacted stakeholder	Description of benefit	Base year (2024)	Average of intervening years (2025–2032)	Final year (2033)	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Flight schools	Avoided mailing costs	$16,269	$12,143	$8,849	$122,265	$17,408
	Avoided satellite base extension labour costs	$121,556	$90,731	$66,119	$913,524	$130,065
Government	Avoided exemption reissuing	$3,341	$1,506	$0	$15,392	$2,191
	Avoided satellite base extension labour costs	$25,607	$19,114	$13,929	$192,446	$27,400
All stakeholders	Total benefits table b5 note a	$166,773	$123,495	$88,897	$1,243,627	$177,064
Table b5 note(s) Table b5 note a Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding. Return to table b5 note a referrer

Table 6: Summary of monetized costs and benefits

Impacts	Base year (2024)	Average of intervening years (2025–2032)	Final year (2033)	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Total costs	$92,654	$72,188	$55,190	$725,345	$103,273
Total benefits	$166,773	$123,495	$88,897	$1,243,627	$177,064
Net benefits table b6 note a	$74,119	$51,307	$33,707	$518,282	$73,791
Table b6 note(s) Table b6 note a Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding. Return to table b6 note a referrer

Qualitative impacts

Positive impacts:

• Safety benefits associated with pilots flying under IFR rules having more recent experience; and
• TC storage and office space gains as the result of no longer requiring the storage of physical training records.

Negative impact:

• Up to 5% of IFR rated private pilots may choose not to keep their recency requirements current, which would limit their future operations.

Sensitivity analysis

Although it is estimated by TC that satellite bases operate for an average of 180 days in a year, due to the uncertainty, a sensitivity analysis exploring different operating bands beyond the 90 days was conducted. In addition to a central scenario described above, low and high scenarios are offered in this section.

In the low scenario, it is assumed that the average number of operating days of a satellite base is from 91 days to 120 days out of the maximum 240 days within a 12-month period. Therefore, there is a reduction of one renewal relative to the baseline.

In the high scenario, it is assumed that the number of operating days of a satellite base is from 211 days to 240 days out of the maximum 240 days within a 12-month period. Therefore, there is a reduction of two renewals and one satellite base application relative to the baseline scenario. The number of yearly satellite base applications/renewals and the present value of each scenario are shown below.

• Number of years: 10 (2024–2033)
• Base year for costing: 2022
• Present value base year: 2024
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 7: Number of yearly reductions in satellite base applications/renewals by sensitivity scenario

Reductions	Low scenario (91–120 days)	Central scenario (121–210 days)	High scenario (211–240 days)
Number of applications	0	28	28
Number of renewals	28	28	56

Table 8: Present value benefits of satellite base extension cost savings by sensitivity scenario

Impacted stakeholder	Description of benefit	Low scenario (91–120 days)	Central scenario (121–210 days)	High scenario (211–240 days)
Flight schools	Avoided satellite base application and renewal costs	$207,619	$913,524	$1,121,143
Government	Avoided satellite base application costs	$0	$192,446	$192,446

Table 9: Summary of monetized costs and benefits by sensitivity scenario

Impacts	Low scenario (91–120 days)	Central scenario (121–210 days)	High scenario (211–240 days)
Total costs	$1,450,690	$1,450,690	$1,450,690
Total benefits	$345,277	$1,243,627	$1,451,246
Net present value table b9 note a	-$1,105,413	-$207,062	$557
Table b9 note(s) Table b9 note a Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding. Return to table b9 note a referrer

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens found that the proposed Regulations would impact small businesses. Values provided throughout the “Small business lens” section, unless otherwise noted, are in 2022 dollars and expressed in present value using a 2024 base year and a 7% discount rate.

Based on discussions with TC’s policy subject matter experts, it was estimated that approximately 90% of the affected flight schools are considered small businesses. Therefore, it is anticipated that 346 flight training schools (out of a total of 384 flight schools) affected by the proposed Regulations would be considered small businesses. Of these 346 flight schools, 22 have satellite bases and are therefore subject to the satellite base extension component of the proposed Regulations.^{footnote 8}

Small businesses would gain administrative benefits due to the introduction of the proposed Regulations.

The modernization of the delivery of flight training records would allow flight schools to send electronic records to TC instead of the current practice in the baseline scenario of mailing paper records to TC. While businesses are not required to submit electronic records over mailing paper flight training records, it is assumed that all flight schools under the regulatory scenario would transition to electronic records due to the economic notion of rational firms and profit maximization. Therefore, the transition to electronic records would be considered an administrative benefit that would result in discounted savings of $0.1 million for flight schools. It is anticipated that all 346 flight schools would be impacted, resulting in average savings of $318 per business from the electronic delivery of flight records.

Moreover, flight schools would see a decrease in administrative costs due to the proposed Regulations regarding extension periods for satellite bases for flight schools. Under the proposed Regulations, it is anticipated that there would be a yearly reduction of one application and one renewal per satellite base compared to the baseline scenario. Since initial applications and renewals take 85 hours and 25 hours, respectively, for a flight school to complete, this would result in discounted savings of $0.8 million for flight schools. It is anticipated that all 22 flight schools would be impacted, resulting in average savings of $37,372 per business from the reduction in applications/renewals of satellite bases.

Small business lens summary

• Number of years: 10 (2024–2033)
• Base year for costing: 2022
• Present value base year: 2024
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 10: Administrative benefits: modernization of the delivery of flight training records
Number of small businesses impacted: 346

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Avoided mailing records	$15,667	$110,039
Benefits per impacted small business	$45	$318

Table 11: Administrative benefits: extension periods of satellite bases
Number of small businesses impacted: 22

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Avoided satellite base extension period labour costs	$117,059	$822,172
Benefits per impacted small business	$5,321	$37,372

Table 12: Total administrative benefits

Totals	Annualized value	Present value
Total administrative benefits (all impacted small businesses)	$132,726	$932,211

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies as the proposed Regulations would result in incremental changes in the administrative burden on business. It is estimated that 384 flight schools along with 28 satellite bases would be impacted by the amendments. All listed values below are presented in 2012 dollars, discounted to 2012 at a 7% rate.

It is anticipated that there would be a reduction in the administrative burden due to the modernization of the delivery of flight training records. It is estimated that on average for each flight school, for which there are an estimated 384 in Canada, there would be a reduction of 13.28 flight training records mailed to TC per year. The average cost associated with mailing of one flight training record is $2.57. This would constitute an annualized reduction in administrative costs of $5,814.

Furthermore, it is expected that there would be a reduction in the administrative burden for satellite bases, for which there are an estimated 28, due to the introduction of the proposed Regulations eliminating the need for additional satellite base applications/renewals. In the baseline scenario, satellite bases submit initial applications for 90 days of operation, with any subsequent extension requiring authorization from TC. In the regulatory scenario, flight schools would be permitted to operate satellite bases for the full 240 days without the need for subsequent approvals from TC. It is expected that, under the proposed Regulations, in the central scenario, for each satellite base, there would be a reduction of one application per year relative to the baseline scenario, with 85 hours of work per application. The hourly wage rate associated with the labour required to complete the application is $31.50. This would constitute an annualized reduction in administrative costs of $33,287.

Similarly, the proposed Regulations are expected to result in a reduction of renewals for satellite base extensions. It is anticipated that for each satellite base, there would be a reduction of one renewal per year, with each renewal taking 25 hours to complete. The hourly wage rate associated with the labour required to complete the application is $31.50. This would constitute an annualized reduction in administrative costs of $9,790.

The net impact of the change in the administrative burden on businesses over the 10-year time frame is expected to be a reduction of $48,891 in 2012 dollars, discounted to 2012 at a 7% rate.

Table 13: One-for-one rule table
Present value base year: 2012

Totals	Annualized value
Annualized reduction in business costs	$48,891
Annualized reduction in business costs per impacted business	$127.32

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The proposed Regulations are not related to any commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum. Although they are not primarily intended to address non-alignment with other jurisdictions, some of these amendments bring the CARs in line with similar jurisdictions.

The proposed Regulations related to the shortening of recency requirements for instrument flights are better aligned with the Federal Aviation Association (FAA). With this amendment, the CARs would align with the FAA, requiring six instrument approaches every six months.

The amendment to prohibit a recreational pilot permit being endorsed with a multi-engine class rating would also better align the CARs with existing FAA regulations.

Although the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) does not quantify a distance for their definition of “cross-country” flight, the proposed Regulations would align the CARs with the EASA by noting the flight is completed by following a pre-planned route, using standard navigation practices.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

A gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) assessment was conducted to determine if the proposed Regulations would have differential impacts on the basis of identity factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. The assessment determined that, given their administrative nature, the proposed Regulations are generally not expected to result in any significant differential impacts on any group of persons based on identity factors. Several consultations were conducted on the proposed changes and no concerns related to different impacts on the basis of identify factors were raised.

The above notwithstanding, TC notes that the proposal to shorten the recency period (26 weeks instead of 52 weeks) for instrument-rated pilots may impact a limited number of private pilot licence holders. These holders generally fly their own aircraft or are employed by other individuals/companies to operate their aircraft. While most of the instrument-rated pilots already satisfy the new requirement, those who only fly occasionally or stop flying for a period of time (between 6 and 24 months after their test) may be required to undertake training to meet the revised recency requirements or wait until they are retested again before flying with instruments (all instrument-rated pilots must be tested every 24 months). Commercial pilots must undertake annual recurrent training so they would not be affected by the proposed changes. Similarly, recreational pilots would not be affected either given that they are not permitted to fly with instruments.

Considering that existing requirements prohibit a female pilot from exercising the privilege of a rating if the female pilot has entered the 30th week of pregnancy or has given birth in the preceding 6 weeks (a total of 16 weeks), female pilots who are or were recently pregnant may be more limited in terms of opportunity time to satisfy the amended recency requirements. In some cases, such pilots may have only a 10-week window of opportunity in which they are eligible to meet the new recency requirements. If they are unable to complete the required 6 hours of instrument flying and 6 instrument approaches during this period, they would either need to undertake training to maintain their recency or wait to be retested to ensure their skills are up to date.

Women are significantly underrepresented among instrument-rated pilots. On October 24, 2023, there were 2 457 holders of a private pilot licence with instrument ratings, 82 of which were female pilots. Of the 82 female pilots, 53 were within childbearing years (i.e. under 60 years old). Despite the potential differential impact the shortened recency period may have on female pilots who are or were recently pregnant, TC has concluded, in part based on the TSB’s findings, that instrument ratings are a perishable skill, and that the shortened recency period is necessary for the safety of pilots, their passengers, and the general public. No mitigation measures were considered given that this new requirement is intended to ensure pilots have the necessary skills, ability, and experience to safely operate the aircraft. Despite that no mitigation measures have been considered, TC does not anticipate that the new requirement would have a negative impact on female pilots in the industry or that the requirement would create a barrier to access for women. Irrespective of gender, pilots recognize the importance of maintaining their skills to an acceptable level for their own safety and the safety of their passengers.

TC’s analysis did not identify any impact to instrument-rated pilots based on other identity factors.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The proposed Regulations would come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

The proposed Regulations would address provisions and terminology that could be perceived as ambiguous or inconsistent, exemptions, and administrative requirements. Most of the proposed Regulations clarify regulatory requirements and, therefore, do not require a change in existing implementation and enforcement procedures but rather enhance compliance by increasing industry’s understanding of what is required of them to maintain a safe air transportation service.

Upon the coming into force of the proposed Regulations, the exemption to paragraph 401.03(1)(a) of the CARs that enables qualified experimental and production test pilots to act as pilot-in-command or co-pilot in an aircraft without holding and being able to produce the appropriate type rating for the aircraft, and that enables engineering test pilots to exercise the privileges of acting as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of any aircraft in the aircraft category endorsed on the pilot’s licence, without having a rating for the aircraft that is being operated for the purpose of flight testing the aircraft for TC, would be cancelled. The exemption to subparagraph 401.05(1)(b)(i) of the CARs enabling the participation in a Part VII training program in a Level C or D simulator to meet the 12-month requirements to exercise privileges of a licence or permit would also be cancelled.

Pilots would be expected to maintain their IFR recency based on the revised requirements upon the coming into force of the proposed Regulations. Pilots who were subject to an instrument proficiency check within 6 months prior to the proposed Regulations coming into force would be required to maintain the new proposed 6-month recency requirements. Pilots who are past this 6-month period will have until the first day of the 13th month following their last proficiency check to comply with the new requirements.

Stakeholders will be notified of the proposed Regulations and of their coming into force through the CARAC process once the amendments are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Compliance and enforcement

TC would continue to enforce compliance with the CARs through the assessment of administrative monetary penalties for contravention of designated provisions under sections 7.6 to 8.2 of the Aeronautics Act, which carry a maximum fine of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations; or through suspension or cancellation of a Canadian aviation document pursuant to sections 6.9, 7 or 7.1 of the Aeronautics Act, or as applicable, proceeding by way of summary conviction, pursuant to section 7.3 of the Aeronautics Act.

This would also apply to the newly designated provision (requiring the person responsible for the maintenance control system to ensure that records relating to the findings resulting from the quality assurance program are distributed to the appropriate manager for corrective action and follow-up), which would carry a maximum fine of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations.

With respect to the revised IFR ratings requirements, there will be no change to the oversight and enforcement program. Should an incident occur, records would be reviewed to ensure that the pilot had the necessary qualifications to operate the aircraft.

Contact

Steve Palisek
Acting Director
Regulatory Affairs
Civil Aviation
Safety and Security Group
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5

Telephone: 613‑993‑7284 or 1‑800‑305‑2059
Email: TC.CARConsultations-RACConsultations.TC@tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Personnel Licensing and Training) under section 4.9^{footnote a} and paragraphs 7.6(1)(a)^{footnote b} and (b)^{footnote c} of the Aeronautics Act ^{footnote d}.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Director, Regulatory Affairs (AARK), Civil Aviation, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (tel: 343‑543‑3619; email: TC.CARConsultations-RACConsultations.TC@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, March 26, 2024

Wendy Nixon
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Personnel Licensing and Training)

Amendments

1 Subpart 6 of Part IV of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Canadian Aviation Regulations ^{footnote 9} is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 406.47(1)”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Subsection 406.47(2)	5,000	25,000

2 (1) Paragraph (b) of the definition flight instructor experience in subsection 400.01(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) by a holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a foreign flight instructor rating issued by a contracting state, while providing dual flight instruction to an applicant for a permit, licence or rating equivalent to one of those referred to in paragraph (a), and

(2) Paragraph (b) of the definition solo flight time in subsection 400.01(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) in the case of a student pilot permit holder, the flight time during which the holder is the sole occupant of an aircraft while under the direction and supervision of the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating for the appropriate category of aircraft. (temps de vol en solo)

(3) Subsection 400.01(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

cross-country flight time

means the flight time recorded when a flight follows standard navigation procedures along a pre-planned route to a destination that is at least 25 nautical miles from the point of departure. (heures de vol-voyage)

3 (1) The portion of subsection 401.03(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.03 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no person shall act as a flight crew member or exercise the privileges of a flight crew permit, licence or rating unless

(2) Section 401.03 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) A person may act as a pilot-in-command or second-in-command of an aircraft that is being operated to conduct a flight testing, without holding a rating for the type of aircraft if

• (a) in the case of a person who is acting as an engineering test pilot,
  • (i) the person has been tasked by the Minister to act in that capacity to carry out flight testing duties,
  • (ii) the person holds a valid airline transport pilot licence or commercial pilot licence that is endorsed for the category of the aircraft being tested,
  • (iii) only those crew members necessary for the purpose of conducting flight testing are on board the aircraft, and
  • (iv) for a flight test conducted outside of Canadian airspace, and the person obtains, prior to entry into any foreign airspace, the authority to act as a pilot-in-command or second-in-command of the aircraft from the Civil Aviation Authority of the state whose airspace is being entered; or
• (b) in the case of a person who is a flight test pilot acting as a Design Approval Representative (DAR),
  • (i) the person has been authorized to act in that capacity by the Minister under section 505.211 of Chapter 505 of the Airworthiness Manual for the flight test and can produce that authorization when performing those functions,
  • (ii) the person holds a valid airline transport pilot licence or commercial pilot licence that is endorsed for the category of the aircraft being tested,
  • (iii) the person meets the recency requirements set out in section 401.05,
  • (iv) only those crew members necessary for the purpose of conducting flight testing are on board the aircraft, and
  • (v) for a flight test conducted outside of Canadian airspace, and the person obtains, prior to entry into any foreign airspace, the authority to act as pilot-in-command or second-in-command of the aircraft from the Civil Aviation Authority of the state whose airspace is being entered.

4 (1) The portion of subsection 401.05(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:

401.05 (1) Despite any other provision of this Subpart, no holder of a flight crew permit, licence or rating, other than the holder of a flight engineer licence, shall exercise the privileges of the permit, licence or rating unless

• (a) the holder has acted as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aircraft within the five years preceding the flight; or
• (a.1) the holder has successfully completed an initial or recurrent pilot training program, within the five years preceding the flight, approved under the applicable Subpart of Part VII, in a Level C or D full-flight simulator that may be used in accordance with section 606.03; or

(2) Subparagraph 401.05(1)(b)(i) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (i) the holder has completed a flight review, in accordance with the personnel licensing standards, conducted by the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating for the same category of aircraft,

(3) The portion of subparagraph 401.05(2)(b)(i) of the Regulations before clause (A) is replaced by the following:

• (i) in the case of an aircraft other than a glider or a balloon, in the same category and class of aircraft as the aircraft, or in a Level B, C or D full-flight simulator of the same category and class as the aircraft, at least

(4) Clause 401.05(2)(b)(ii)(B) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (B) two take-offs and two landings in a glider with the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating — glider and who subsequently obtained a certification of competence to carry passengers on board a glider from that holder in accordance with the personnel licensing standards, and

(5) The portion of paragraph 401.05(3) of the Regulations before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:

(3) No holder of a pilot licence that is endorsed with an instrument rating or to which instrument rating privileges are attached shall exercise the privileges of the instrument rating unless the holder has successfully completed, within the 24 months preceding the flight, one of the following:

• (a) an instrument rating flight test in an aircraft or in a Level B, C or D full-flight simulator of the same group as the aircraft;

(6) The portion of paragraph 401.05(3)(c) before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

• (c) an instrument proficiency check that

(7) Clause 401.05(3)(c)(iii)(D) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (D) a Canadian Armed Forces instrument check pilot, if the holder of a pilot licence who was undergoing the proficiency check is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces; or

(8) The portion of paragraph 401.05(3)(d) before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

• (d) one of the following competency checks or pilot proficiency checks that includes a portion on instrument procedures:

(9) Subparagraph 401.05(3)(d)(iii) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (iii) a foreign pilot proficiency or competency check that is approved by a contracting state and conducted by a foreign check pilot who is authorized to conduct instrument proficiency checks for commercial or private air operators of that state, if the holder is working for hire or reward for a foreign commercial or private air operator, or

(10) Subsections 401.05(3.1) and (3.2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3.1) No holder of a pilot licence that is endorsed with an instrument rating or to which instrument rating privileges are attached shall exercise the privileges of the instrument rating unless, following the first day of the seventh month after the completion of a test or check referred to in subsection (3) and within six months before the flight, the holder has

• (a) acquired six hours of instrument time; and
• (b) completed six instrument approaches in accordance with the minima set out in the instrument approach procedure
  • (i) in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions,
  • (ii) in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions, while acting as a flight instructor who is conducting training in respect of the endorsement of a flight crew licence with an instrument rating,
  • (iii) in a Level B, C or D full-flight simulator of the same category as the aircraft, or
  • (iv) in a flight training device under the supervision of a person who holds the qualifications referred to in subsection 425.21(9) of the personnel licensing standards.

(3.2) The holder of a pilot licence that is endorsed with an instrument rating or to which instrument rating privileges are attached shall retain a record of having met the applicable recency requirements set out in subsection (3) or (3.1) for three years.

(11) The portion of subsection 401.05(4) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• (4) No holder of a flight engineer licence shall exercise the privileges set out in section 401.37 unless

(12) The portion of subsection 401.05(5) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• (5) No holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a second officer rating shall exercise the privileges set out in section 401.53 unless

(13) The portion of subsection 401.05(6) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• (6) No holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating — ultra-light aeroplane shall exercise the privileges set out in section 401.88 unless

5 Paragraph 401.12(4)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) the first day of the 61st month following the day on which the holder’s language proficiency evaluation was conducted, if the application for the licence included documentation establishing that the holder demonstrated an operational level ability during the evaluation.

6 Subsection 401.18(4) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (4) Where the holder of a pilot licence — balloon demonstrates, in accordance with the personnel licensing standards, additional methods of inflation to an instructor who holds a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating — balloon, the instructor shall so endorse the holder’s personal log, recording therein the additional methods of inflation used.

7 Section 401.38 of the Regulations is renumbered as subsection 401.38(1) and is amended by adding the following:

• (2) Despite paragraph (1)(d), the Minister shall not endorse a recreational pilot permit with a multi-engine class rating.

8 (1) The portion of subsection 401.53(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.53 (1) The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a second officer rating may

(2) The portion of subsection 401.53(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• (2) A holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a second officer rating who supervises other holders of pilot licenses endorsed with second officer ratings may conduct flight training and competency checks in respect of

9 The portion of section 401.62 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.62 Subject to paragraph 401.69(e), no holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — aeroplane or a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter shall exercise the privileges accorded by that rating unless the holder

10 Section 401.63 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Class 1 or 2 — Supervision of the Holder of a Pilot Licence Endorsed with a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating — Aeroplane and Helicopter

401.63 (1) If the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 1 or Class 2 flight instructor rating — aeroplane supervises the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — aeroplane, they shall do so in accordance with the personnel licensing standards.

(2) If the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 1 or Class 2 flight instructor rating — helicopter supervises the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter, they shall do so in accordance with the personnel licensing standards.

11 Section 401.64 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• 401.64 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — aeroplane or a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter shall, in respect of the trainees under their supervision, keep records in accordance with the personnel licensing standards.

12 The portion of section 401.69 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.69 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — aeroplane may

13 The portion of section 401.70 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.70 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 3 flight instructor rating — aeroplane may

14 (1) The portion of section 401.71 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.71 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 2 flight instructor rating — aeroplane may

(2) Paragraph 401.71(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) supervise the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — aeroplane; and

15 The portion of section 401.72 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.72 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 1 flight instructor rating — aeroplane may

16 The portion of section 401.77 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.77 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter may

17 Section 401.78 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• 401.78 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 3 flight instructor rating — helicopter may exercise the privileges of a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter.

18 (1) The portion of section 401.79 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.79 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 2 flight instructor rating — helicopter may

(2) Paragraph 401.79(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) supervise the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter; and

19 The portion of section 401.80 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.80 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 1 flight instructor rating — helicopter may

20 The portion of section 401.92 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.92 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 2 flight instructor rating — aeroplane — aerobatic may

21 The portion of section 401.93 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 401.93 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 1 flight instructor rating — aeroplane — aerobatic may

22 Section 401.94 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• 401.94 The Minister shall endorse a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating — glider with a flight instructor rating — glider — aerobatic if the applicant for the rating meets the requirements referred to in section 401.06.

23 Section 401.95 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

401.95 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating — glider — aerobatic may

• (a) provide, in a glider, flight instruction in the performance of aerobatic manœuvres;
• (b) provide dual flight instruction to the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating — glider in respect of the endorsement of the holder’s licence with an aerobatic rating — glider; and
• (c) recommend that the licence of the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating — glider be endorsed with an aerobatic rating — glider.

24 Paragraph 402.08(3)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) the 1st day of the 121st month following the day on which the booklet was issued, if the application for the licence included documentation establishing that the holder demonstrated an expert level ability during their language proficiency evaluation; or

25 Subsections 404.04(7) and (8) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

• (7) The end of the validity period of a medical certificate that is issued or renewed under subsection (1) is calculated from the first day of the month following the day on which the medical examination for the renewal of the certificate is conducted.
• (8) The end of the validity period of a medical certificate that is renewed under subsection (1.1) is calculated from the first day of the month following the day on which the medical examination for the renewal of the certificate is conducted.

26 Subsection 405.33(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (3) When a trainee has completed flight training, including all of the tests and written examinations required under Subpart 1, the person who conducted the flight training shall provide a paper copy of the trainee’s pilot training record to the trainee and forward an electronic copy of the record to the Minister.

27 Section 406.03 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

• (2.1) For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(b)(i), a member of the family means a parent, child, sibling or spouse.

28 Subparagraph 406.12(g)(i) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (i) in the case of a flight training unit that operates aeroplanes or helicopters, the conduct of flight training operations on a temporary basis at a satellite base, not exceeding 240 days within a 12-month period, and

29 The portion of section 406.35 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

• 406.35 A flight training unit that operates an aeroplane or a helicopter shall establish and maintain a maintenance control system that

30 Paragraph 406.38(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) unless otherwise authorized by the Minister in writing if it is demonstrated that the granting of the authorization will not jeopardize the safety of the service, authorize the use of its maintenance control manual and maintain the policies and procedures that the manual contains;

31 Subsection 406.47(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (2) The person responsible for the maintenance control system shall ensure that records relating to the findings resulting from the quality assurance program are distributed to the appropriate manager for corrective action and follow-up.

32 Paragraph 604.144(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) in the case of a flight simulator instructor, the person holds, or has held, in respect of the aircraft type used for the training, the licence and ratings required by Part IV or, in the case of a flight simulator instructor licensed by a contracting state, a licence and ratings equivalent to those required by Part IV;

33 Paragraph 700.02(4)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) the pilot-in-command is the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a valid flight instructor rating in the appropriate category of aircraft;

34 The Regulations are amended by replacing “holder of a flight instructor rating” with “holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating” in the following provisions:

• (a) the portion of paragraph (a) before subparagraph (i) of the definition flight instructor experience in subsection 400.01(1);
• (b) subparagraph 401.24(b)(i);
• (c) paragraph 401.25(a);
• (d) subsection 401.67(1);
• (e) the portion of section 401.82 before paragraph (a);
• (f) the portion of section 401.83 before paragraph (a);
• (g) the portion of section 401.84 before paragraph (a);
• (h) the portion of section 401.88 before paragraph (a); and
• (i) paragraph 408.19(f).

35 The Regulations are amended by replacing “simulator” and “flight simulator” with “full-flight simulator” in the following provisions:

• (a) clause 604.49(b)(iv)(B);
• (b) subclause 604.50(b)(ii)(D)(II);
• (c) the heading before section 604.171;
• (d) the portion of section 604.171 before paragraph (a) and paragraph 604.171(j);
• (e) the heading before section 604.172;
• (f) the portion of section 604.172 before paragraph (a);
• (g) the heading before section 604.173;
• (h) the portion of section 604.173 before paragraph (a); and
• (i) section 604.174 and the heading before it.

Coming into Force

36 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

• contain personal information
• contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
• express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
• contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
• contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
• constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
• encourage or incite any criminal activity
• contain external links
• contain a language other than English or French
• otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that public email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.